Returning the Fighter to relevance.

[John Longarrow]

With the myriad books that have come out many classes have received boons in one form or another. The fighter has more feats to select from for their bonus feats but, unlike some other classes, has not stood the test of time well. I do have a couple changes that should return the fighter to its original role, master of melee, and allow it to return as a viable straight build.

The Four changes I'm considering for my next table top game are;
1) Bonus fighter feat every level (previously taken can be changed on even levels, so long as they are not required for another feat).
2) Fighters do not need to meet stat requirements for bonus feats. As such a Dex 8 fighter CAN go all the way up the TWF tree.
3) Fighters get 4 + int skill points / level with the following skills added to their list; Listen, Spot, Survival.
4) If using Tome of Battle, each level in Fighter counts as an initiator level for any maneuver using class, including fighters who use bonus feats to take maneuvers and stances.

The change to skills isn't a lot but should make for a more rounded character. The other three should let them really stay relevant.

Can anyone see anything majorly overpowering about these changes?

[OldTrees1]

Can anyone see anything majorly overpowering about these changes?

I see nothing overpowering, however I recommend you keep going.

1a) This Fighter2.0 still presumes that the feats in question with be worth a level's worth of class features. There are some feats(several even on the small Fighter Bonus feat list) that are so worthy. However I am of the opinion that the Fighter will run out of such feats or be otherwise forced to take lesser feats as prerequisites.

1b) There are some abilities Fighters would certainly want that were not yet made into [Fighter] feats (or even feats at all). This is a topic best left in the abstract because concrete arguments about it has derailed threads like this before.

3) You might want to expand that skill list a bit more. The Fighter's base skill list is ridiculously short. The low skill points per level and lack of skill focused class features will prevent them from threatening the skill mastery niche of the Skill Monkey base classes.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Making the Fighter relevant again.

Step 1: Read Pathfinder.
Step 2: Backport the Pathfinder Fighter to 3.x
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!!! Enjoy DnD.

[Troacctid]

Your fixes are almost exactly the same as mine. HOWEVER, after testing out the initiator level rule, I removed it because it ended up being more of a buff to initiators than to fighters.

[stanprollyright]

The Four changes I'm considering for my next table top game are;
1) Bonus fighter feat every level (previously taken can be changed on even levels, so long as they are not required for another feat).
This just frontloads the class IMO, as you get your feat chain sooner and then have little else to do. I personally would like it if Fighters got a few floating feats to go with their bonus feats and/or could select talents that give you whole feat chains. Like if you take Weapon Focus you get Weapon Specialization at level 4 and greater versions later, or you get take TWF and get Improved and Greater as you get more iterative attacks.

2) Fighters do not need to meet stat requirements for bonus feats. As such a Dex 8 fighter CAN go all the way up the TWF tree.
Yep. Also, see above.

3) Fighters get 4 + int skill points / level with the following skills added to their list; Listen, Spot, Survival.
I'd add Diplomacy to that list, for "leader of men" types.

4) If using Tome of Battle, each level in Fighter counts as an initiator level for any maneuver using class, including fighters who use bonus feats to take maneuvers and stances.
Yep.

[Vaz]

Play a Warblade, or play 5th edition.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Don't give fighters feats every level. They get plenty as is. Instead give them class features in those dead levels so they feel like fighters.
Also use the wagon group rules; those favor mundanes a bit and fighters are the only class to get 4+Basic

Some thoughts: reduce or even remove non-proficiency penalties; the ability to take 10/20 on an attack roll; the ability to swap weapons more freely, including faster stowing; anything that rewards them for taking large feat chains beyond the feats themselves.

[Flickerdart]

Let fighters do things beyond attacking. Attacking is boring and easily countered.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Can anyone see anything majorly overpowering about these changes?
Nope. I also don't see anything tremendously useful about the changes either, apart from the skill boost which should be a universal rule. As stanprollyright mentioned, all it really means is that you get your schtick early. There might be some sweet spot where you've taken your first schtick as far as you can go within level-based limits and the second one you've started on isn't obsolete yet, but...

The best easy thing to do with the Fighter, in my opinion, is to gestalt it with another crappy martial class. Cross them with a Marshal and now you have an actually respectable battlefield leader type; cross them with a Knight (and take Wild Cohort) and you have a very well-rounded mounted tank; heck, cross them with a Monk and you have... well, okay, it's still pretty crappy, but it's at least a marginally more capable brawler.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Nope. I also don't see anything tremendously useful about the changes either, apart from the skill boost which should be a universal rule. As stanprollyright mentioned, all it really means is that you get your schtick early. There might be some sweet spot where you've taken your first schtick as far as you can go within level-based limits and the second one you've started on isn't obsolete yet, but...

The best easy thing to do with the Fighter, in my opinion, is to gestalt it with another crappy martial class. Cross them with a Marshal and now you have an actually respectable battlefield leader type; cross them with a Knight (and take Wild Cohort) and you have a very well-rounded mounted tank; heck, cross them with a Monk and you have... well, okay, it's still pretty crappy, but it's at least a marginally more capable brawler.
This, really.

If you want to stay with semi-official 'fighter' abilities, you can have some fun by giving all fighters every ACF at once (as a pseudo-gestalt of variant fighters), including useful abilities such as Dungeoncrasher, Hit-and-Run, Zhentarim fighter, dead level improvements, Thug variant, sneak attack variant, Exoticist and Kensai variants, and all other stuff you can accumulate from various obscure sources. That gets you a pretty decent chassis, though it's still not exactly top-notch.

[Flickerdart]

This, really.

If you want to stay with semi-official 'fighter' abilities, you can have some fun by giving all fighters every ACF at once (as a pseudo-gestalt of variant fighters), including useful abilities such as Dungeoncrasher, Hit-and-Run, Zhentarim fighter, dead level improvements, Thug variant, sneak attack variant, Exoticist and Kensai variants, and all other stuff you can accumulate from various obscure sources. That gets you a pretty decent chassis, though it's still not exactly top-notch.

Then you end up with a fighter that's really really good at damage, but the fighter has no problem being good at damage. Making it too good at damage just makes the DM more likely to use encounters that "walk up and gank" doesn't solve. And this fighter is not really better than the regular fighter at addressing those encounters.

[Pleh]

Don't give fighters feats every level. They get plenty as is. Instead give them class features in those dead levels so they feel like fighters.
Also use the wagon group rules; those favor mundanes a bit and fighters are the only class to get 4+Basic

Some thoughts: reduce or even remove non-proficiency penalties; the ability to take 10/20 on an attack roll; the ability to swap weapons more freely, including faster stowing; anything that rewards them for taking large feat chains beyond the feats themselves.

I really like some of these thoughts. Taking 10/20 on an attack roll is very interesting, since normally for skills it means you keep trying until you eventually succeed. For attacks, this would mean you literally attack 10 times to take 10, assuming that with 10 tries, you will get the result of a 10 once.

I can see this as almost like a martial strategy of swinging wildly and aggressively, but in a controlled and tactical manner that only trained experts can manage. You know that 90% of your attacks will fail, but 1 of them will absolutely land (assuming you only need to roll 10 to hit). This puts pressure on your enemies in a similar sense that Swarms do to players. Any round they don't actively avoid being too close to you, you can auto hit them just by incessantly attacking them.

I was taught similar tactics in soccer, where half the point in provoking the enemy had less to do with actually taking the ball and more to do with putting pressure on the opponent to make them mess up and lose control. Kind of reminds me of the Mageslayer feat, which you could bundle into this as an advancement on this class feature.

For example, at level 3 fighters can take 10 on attacks (assuming they full attack). At 5th level, they get Mageslayer if they take 10 on attacks. At 7th level, they can take 20 on attacks. At 11th level, they can take 10 as a standard action (because they have enough attacks from BAB to justify this many attacks per round anyway). And so on and so forth.

[stanprollyright]

I really like some of these thoughts. Taking 10/20 on an attack roll is very interesting, since normally for skills it means you keep trying until you eventually succeed. For attacks, this would mean you literally attack 10 times to take 10, assuming that with 10 tries, you will get the result of a 10 once.

That's...not how taking 10 works.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This, really.

If you want to stay with semi-official 'fighter' abilities, you can have some fun by giving all fighters every ACF at once (as a pseudo-gestalt of variant fighters), including useful abilities such as Dungeoncrasher, Hit-and-Run, Zhentarim fighter, dead level improvements, Thug variant, sneak attack variant, Exoticist and Kensai variants, and all other stuff you can accumulate from various obscure sources. That gets you a pretty decent chassis, though it's still not exactly top-notch.
Dungeoncrasher + Zhentarim + Thug + Dead Levels, especially if you ignore the usual tradeoffs, gives you a pretty solid character for the first ten levels or so. Trails off at the end, but not terrible at the start-- you have a special attack, good intimidation, some decent skill points and charisma skills.

[stanprollyright]

+ free skill tricks. Perfect!

[Âmesang]

There's also the Complete Champion ACFs which, as far as I can tell, would stack with at least Zhentarim and Dungeoncrasher (and Thug if you don't take the sneak attack variant).

To add in a bit of AD&D flavor I suppose one could give the fighter Leadership as a bonus feat. :smalltongue:

[Pleh]

That's...not how taking 10 works.

Eh, I was thinking of Taking 20 rules and how it was described to me by other players.


Taking 20 [SRD]
When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

You're right that Taking 10 isn't worded this way. I had just misremembered that they don't both work this way.

[John Longarrow]

OK, ignoring most of the posts that don't answer the question posed, the biggest change should be in class skills to allow more non-combat options? Cool.

[Flickerdart]

OK, ignoring most of the posts that don't answer the question posed, the biggest change should be in class skills to allow more non-combat options? Cool.

Skills are rubbish, the fighter needs class features that do unique stuff.

[John Longarrow]

Skills are rubbish, the fighter needs class features that do unique stuff.

Such as?

I'm going with a bonus feat every level since most "class features" for melee combatants are focused on doing more in melee. I'm letting players choose how they want their fighter to progress instead of taking pathfinders "Better with armor / better with weapons" class features ever odd level.

[Troacctid]

Then you end up with a fighter that's really really good at damage, but the fighter has no problem being good at damage. Making it too good at damage just makes the DM more likely to use encounters that "walk up and gank" doesn't solve. And this fighter is not really better than the regular fighter at addressing those encounters.
Strongly disagree. The biggest problem with Fighter is that it doesn't excel at its niche. Pushing its combat power is the best thing you can do for the class. (Also more skill points and class skills.)

And Fighters do have problems dealing damage reliably. They're MAD, they need a full-round action for everything, and don't even talk to me about archery or TWF, they're so nerfed it's just sad.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Such as?

I'm going with a bonus feat every level since most "class features" for melee combatants are focused on doing more in melee. I'm letting players choose how they want their fighter to progress instead of taking pathfinders "Better with armor / better with weapons" class features ever odd level.
Depends; are you looking for quick-ish tweaks ("gestalt with the Marshal") or full rewrites (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!)?

[John Longarrow]

Depends; are you looking for quick-ish tweaks ("gestalt with the Marshal") or full rewrites (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!)?

I'm looking for something that will let a player build the melee combatant they want without forcing them into some hard coded path where some of the AFCs don't match their character concept so become useless.

If you want to build a fighter who doesn't use armor but dual wields being given something that helps with armor is useless an effectively a dead level.

Being a fighter who uses two handed weapons but receiving a class feature that helps with shield is a dead level.

Most of the "Fixes" I see don't let players build what they want or push when they get it to the point its not very relevant.

I'm all for letting my players build what they want. My next big project is going to be adding additional feats to the fighter bonus feat list. I don't want them to feel they have to build something because that is how the class features go.

[Ruslan]

The best easy thing to do with the Fighter, in my opinion, is to gestalt it with another crappy martial class. Cross them with a Marshal and now you have an actually respectable battlefield leader type; cross them with a Knight (and take Wild Cohort) and you have a very well-rounded mounted tank; heck, cross them with a Monk and you have... well, okay, it's still pretty crappy, but it's at least a marginally more capable brawler.
I have always felt that the Fighter should not really exist as a standalone class, and this ^^^^^ is the right solution for it. It's just not interesting enough. In fact, my attempt at "fixed D&D" had three martial classes: Templar (which is really Paladin//Fighter), Berserker (which is really Barbarian//Fighter without heavy armor) and Hunter (which is really Ranger//Fighter without heavy or medium armor). The Marshal//Fighter class is a great idea, I should have added it in there!

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm looking for something that will let a player build the melee combatant they want without forcing them into some hard coded path where some of the AFCs don't match their character concept so become useless.
So... you want a Fighter rewrite with a very broad chassis that can be used for virtually any sort of martial combatant? My fix (linked earlier) might or might not be to your taste, then; you do pick between being a perceptive, intelligent, or charismatic fighter, each granting access to different pools of special abilities, but the base chassis is more of a "I can do all the mundane fighty things" with bonuses to all physical actions and the ability to switch between different sets of bonus feats. Jiriku's version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?194834-3-5-Fighter-Remix-Doin-it-old-school) might fit a bit better, though; it pairs a general chassis upgrade with a bunch of new archetypes and a crapton of new, Fighter-specific feats.

[John Longarrow]

For my personal style of character creation I look at classes as 'mechanics that can be added to a character concept'. I never make any character a straight class mostly because none fit a theme I'd want to play.

With fighter, the 9 levels where you receive no addition beside BAB, HP, and a small number of skill points don't help with most character concepts so I rarely see more than 2 levels in "Fighter" for builds I play or for those in the groups I've played in.

This isn't because no one would want to play a melee-centric build, its because getting those builds to work by a reasonable level doesn't include more than two levels in fighter. If your builds is feat-centric, most often you will shop for classes (base or prestige) that give you those feats early.

[Nifft]

Remove the Fighter from the game entirely.

Give all the "martial" classes a bunch of bonus feats.

[Arbane]

Skills are rubbish, the fighter needs class features that do unique stuff.

I'm not disagreeing, but what class features can a 17th level Fighter have that will

a: Be even vaguely close to the Win Button capacity of 9th-level spellcasting and
b: Not outrage the Caster Supremacy fans?

[PacMan2247]

Such as?

I'm going with a bonus feat every level since most "class features" for melee combatants are focused on doing more in melee. I'm letting players choose how they want their fighter to progress instead of taking pathfinders "Better with armor / better with weapons" class features ever odd level.

There's always the 2nd ed. answer of giving them a keep at tenth level (or thereabouts, you'd probably want it on an odd-numbered level); works particularly well if you take the suggestion of Leadership as a bonus feat. I've had the misfortune of being involved with a lot of murderhobos who get upset when the DM decides to have something come back around to bite them in the backside; despite following the story development and making long-term plans for things they want to do to NPCs, they're never really invested in the world and are always surprised when their actions have consequences. I'm a fan of getting players invested by making them design part of the world.

[DMVerdandi]

Things I would do:

Make the fighter the wizard of melee/martial adepts.

1. Give them their own initiator progression. with maneuvers prepared, rather than maneuvers known. Have maneuvers prepared max out at ten. Then have maneuvers readied stop at 5, and stances prepared end at two. Also have it so that the fighter cannot benefit from the feats "Adaptive style, Extra granted maneuver, Extra readied maneuver, Martial Stance, and Martial Study"


Level
Maneuvers Prepared
Maneuvers Readied
Stances prepared
ROLLING BONUS FEATS


1
3
3
1
1


10
5
5
2
5


20
10
5
2
10






2. Give them the capability to learn martial maneuvers from doing a martial lore check with a martial script, just as wizards are able to With spells. Also give them scribe martial script at level 1.


3. Do not increase fighter feats, but instead make the feats that they get rolling feats(changeable every day after rest). And give them the ability to purchase any feat they qualify for, not just bonus fighter feats.

4. 4+ int skills with these skills
Climb,Craft,Diplomacy,Hide,Intimidate,Jump,Listen, Martial Lore, Move Silently,Ride,Spot,Survival,Swim,Tumble,Use Rope,Heal,
Knowledge(War,Weaponry,Tactics,Dungeoneering,Geogr aphy,)





Voila.

[PacMan2247]

I'm not disagreeing, but what class features can a 17th level Fighter have that will

a: Be even vaguely close to the Win Button capacity of 9th-level spellcasting and
b: Not outrage the Caster Supremacy fans?

Good questions. To respond the second one first, I'd say that's not really the issue here. If people want to get upset because a previously dismissed class is suddenly respectable, that's their problem.

The first question is really the point of the thread. There have been a couple of suggestions for more unique options that are only available to fighters, and for more options that aren't related to combat, and I'd agree on both of those counts.

As far as skills go, I've always disliked the idea of cross-class skills. By all means, limit certain skills to particular classes (it's a rare non-caster that would have much use for Spellcraft, for instance), but beyond something that's a part of specialized training, why limit it? It's like saying an accountant is going to be a crap mountain climber, or a plumber is going to be a terrible painter; individual interests are more relevant that professional training.

As far as unique options specifically related to the martial training a fighter gets, I'd love to see some spitballing. Maybe make fighters an exception to the rule that Keen and Improved Critical don't stack, for instance, or even give them access to improved crit modifiers. The 'bonus feat every level' thing isn't actually a terrible idea- it creates space for covering not just offensive feat trees, but would allow a fighter to use armor-related feats and tactical feats more broadly.

The idea isn't to make fighters outshine anyone else, but to give them back a little glow themselves. Starting from "why bother?" doesn't help that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not disagreeing, but what class features can a 17th level Fighter have that will

a: Be even vaguely close to the Win Button capacity of 9th-level spellcasting and
b: Not outrage the Caster Supremacy fans?
Well, you can do A. (Or at least get close to it; it's probably healthiest to ignore outrageously broken stuff like Shapechange). You have to go deep, deep into the superhero end of mythology, but you can do it. I'm talking things like cut a castle in half with a sword, rebuild it in an hour, single-handedly, then turn an army of peasants into skilled warriors to man it. Then when a wizard shows up to take it back, you deflect his (non-touch-attack) spells back at him, follow his teleport-retreat by jumping halfway across the plane in a single bound, chop through his defenses with nothing but steely determination, and "unseam him from nave to chops". It's doable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!), but it looks silly as all get-out and kind of invalidates any other existing "mundane" type character.

[Troacctid]

5e kinda does it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A.) The fighter class needs to have useful and level appropriate class features at every level that properly scale, along with its bonus feats (and to fill in the dead levels that comprise 45 friggin' percent of its totals). Use those to shore up its massive weaknesses, such as its total reliance on magic items for practically everything. Access to a class-granted flying mount or carpet or the ability to perform an anime-esque mighty leaping double-jump, or something, as examples. You could even choose one of several trees of abilities, depending on which direction you want your character to go in (such as the heavily armored mounted charger, archer, light cavalry, swashbuckler, etc).

B.) The bonus feats it gets need to scale well and increase both its power and versatility beyond "I hit it in a slightly DIFFERENT way! I even get a massively huge +2 to it!" Dodge, for instance, should apply to all enemies you're aware of, should grant +1 plus 1 at 3rd and each odd level after, and it should allow you to take an immediate action to take a 5' step some time during the round which does not affect your normal ability to move or take a 5' step for the round. I would totally consider taking it, if only for the immediate action 5' step. Such bonus feats should also be anything the character qualifies for that could conceivably be a martial combat feat (so no or [metamagic] feats).

C.) There should be a ton of fighter-only feats that require effective fighter levels as prereqs, and these should be really, [I]seriously great feats. Less Weapon Specialization, more Improved Whirlwind Attack and Shock Trooper.

D.) Two good saves, or some option to improve them. Everyone knows that the mundane guy who doesn't cast spells is easily dominated, so change that around. If you can pick two good saves, that covers everything from a swashbuckler to a knightly type.

E.) Widely expanded class skill list, 4 skill points per level, and options (and major benefits) for having Int-focus, if you choose to go that way. Can choose to add +Str, +Dex, +Int, +Wis, or +Con (perhaps through Concentration) to attack and damage, for instance, to reduce MAD. Have a lot more mental skills and feats that indicate discipline and a wide study of war and types of enemies. It's sad that fighters don't have a single skill that lets them know about fighting. They often don't even know how to ID enemies, including those of their own race. This could easily be covered with Knowledge skills and a class feature that acts like bardic lore, but it acts to ID enemies and to recount tactics and strategies used in historical battles, as well as helps with seeking advantageous terrain and whatnot. Call it War Lored.

I think that, with all of that covered, the fighter would be considerably more interesting, if nothing else. You'd actually have reasons to take the class to level 20, rather than our current cap of 2 (or maybe 4/6/9, if you take ACFs).

[Vaz]

I'm not disagreeing, but what class features can a 17th level Fighter have that will

a: Be even vaguely close to the Win Button capacity of 9th-level spellcasting and
b: Not outrage the Caster Supremacy fans?

Be a Warblade.

[Lans]

Instead of more bonus feats have you thought about giving him feat chains like the ranger? Give him like 5 chains from a list of at least 8, that are each 5 feats deep over the 20 levels.

Also just back port the pathfinder on top of that and give him 6 skill points with listen, spot, and 2 of his choice.

[John Longarrow]

Instead of more bonus feats have you thought about giving him feat chains like the ranger? Give him like 5 chains from a list of at least 8, that are each 5 feats deep over the 20 levels.

Also just back port the pathfinder on top of that and give him 6 skill points with listen, spot, and 2 of his choice.

I looked at pathfinder's solution and some of the "Feat chain" methods people use with monks and I kept coming back to one singular issue I have with all of them; they are one writers attempt to support a given concept.

I'd much rather the player have as many options available to build the character they want rather than saying "OK, pick from one of X ways I think you should play your character".

For the concept of being able to change out feats / fighting styles, why not just let them have access to all of them all the time? Functionally its about the same.

[OldTrees1]

For the concept of being able to change out feats / fighting styles, why not just let them have access to all of them all the time? Functionally its about the same.

Initially I thought the same as you on the concept of floating feats vs more feats. The difference is that floating feats places a lower at-one-time limit so it can limit the depth of feat sets while still allowing the Fighter access to many different feat sets.

Imagine(in a hypothetical system) there are 20 fighting styles, each of which has roughly 20-30 applicable feats that combine to create and advance the fighting style thought the levels 1-20.

If I wanted to make a 10th level Fighter class under this system, I would want them to be able to access multiple fighting styles at level appropriate strengths without being able to overspecialize to the point that they are as strong as a 20th level Fighter by only having 1 fighting style. By giving the Fighter 10 floating feats they can change between 10th level fighting styles but do not have the feat slots to construct a 20th level fighting style.

Of course this works in my hypothetical system where I can make lots of baseless presumptions. You would have to alter D&D's feats a lot to reach something comparable.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For the concept of being able to change out feats / fighting styles, why not just let them have access to all of them all the time? Functionally its about the same.
The more feats you have, the more complexity. If you have twenty feats all working at the same time, it's easy to start drowning in them.


I looked at pathfinder's solution and some of the "Feat chain" methods people use with monks and I kept coming back to one singular issue I have with all of them; they are one writers attempt to support a given concept.

I'd much rather the player have as many options available to build the character they want rather than saying "OK, pick from one of X ways I think you should play your character".
But, I mean... this is a game; there will always be limits at some point, even if you're talking something like GURPS or M&M. One serious problem with trying to create an effective Fighter is how broadly defined the class is; it's very different to create an effective class if it doesn't have an identity to hang things off.

[OldTrees1]

The more feats you have, the more complexity. If you have twenty feats all working at the same time, it's easy to start drowning in them.

I don't know if that is a good argument against feats. You are talking about a class whose defining class feature is one about choosing perks from a list of perks. IMHO it is a class designed for complexity and having 20 feats does not seem unreasonable. Swordsages are running around with at least 20 things to remember already(7 feats, 12 available maneuvers, 1 current stance).In context, 27 feats at 20th does not sound that bad to me.

[John Longarrow]

The more feats you have, the more complexity. If you have twenty feats all working at the same time, it's easy to start drowning in them.

If the character has 20 feats then the player has been playing that character for a while. Character would be a 14th level human (Human bonus, 5 from leveling, 14 from fighter) so they should have a really good idea how to use the feats they have. Its also a LOT less work than the poor casters who have entire lists of spells they can choose from. I really don't think complexity would be a problem.

Note: If I could switch between 14 different trees of feats on a turn by turn basis, it may be a bit too complex, but that would be mostly a "DM's Headache" issue similar to tracking multiple status effects at the same time.

[Arbane]

. It's sad that fighters don't have a single skill that lets them know about fighting. They often don't even know how to ID enemies, including those of their own race. This could easily be covered with Knowledge skills and a class feature that acts like bardic lore, but it acts to ID enemies and to recount tactics and strategies used in historical battles, as well as helps with seeking advantageous terrain and whatnot. Call it War Lored.


I laugh at your pun, and then I agree with you. Having a way to size up enemies beyond 'see what they need to roll to hit me' is something fighty-types should have access to.


Well, you can do A. (Or at least get close to it; it's probably healthiest to ignore outrageously broken stuff like Shapechange). You have to go deep, deep into the superhero end of mythology, but you can do it. I'm talking things like cut a castle in half with a sword, rebuild it in an hour, single-handedly, then turn an army of peasants into skilled warriors to man it. Then when a wizard shows up to take it back, you deflect his (non-touch-attack) spells back at him, follow his teleport-retreat by jumping halfway across the plane in a single bound, chop through his defenses with nothing but steely determination, and "unseam him from nave to chops". It's doable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!), but it looks silly as all get-out and kind of invalidates any other existing "mundane" type character.

By the high levels, wizards are making pretty much every pre-D&D legendary wizard look like amateurs, so I've got no problem with needing to steal from Celtic myth & similar for the fighters.

I've also got no problem with invalidating the other 'mundanes'. Which is what, rogues? They need help too.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I laugh at your pun, and then I agree with you. Having a way to size up enemies beyond 'see what they need to roll to hit me' is something fighty-types should have access to.It's nice to see someone taking notice. :smallbiggrin:


By the high levels, wizards are making pretty much every pre-D&D legendary wizard look like amateurs, so I've got no problem with needing to steal from Celtic myth & similar for the fighters.

I've also got no problem with invalidating the other 'mundanes'. Which is what, rogues? They need help too.This kind of stuff is doable in the system, but it's generally done via tons of optimization and magic (and not all of it is spellcasting, either). Even warriors should have innate skills that break reality; not all of those with supernatural skill should be spellcasters, and once you hit a certain level, even the mundanes aren't exactly mundane anymore, nore should they be.

[Lans]

I looked at pathfinder's solution and some of the "Feat chain" methods people use with monks and I kept coming back to one singular issue I have with all of them; they are one writers attempt to support a given concept.

I'd much rather the player have as many options available to build the character they want rather than saying "OK, pick from one of X ways I think you should play your character".


The idea is that its easier for new people, and raises the floor of suckitude. You can even ask your player what he wants to do and make chains based around that. You are already working in the confines of the fighter bonus feat list, it should't be hard to make chains that can cover the bases with 11 additional bonus feats, expecialy if you build several of the chains on what your players want.

[John Longarrow]

Just wondering how building "Chains" is better than letting the players work out what they want. I don't think its actually easier that asking what feat they want at each level.

If you want a chain of feats, you can work it out ahead of time. This is equally valid with bonus feats. Just take feat X at level Y and be done. Personally I like being able to customize more than that.

For new people using some stock builds makes sense until they learn the system. Course if you say "OK, here's the beginners builds, you'll be playing them any time you play the game" seems to miss the point of making the character the player wants to play.

[Lans]

It reduces the chances that a player makes a major mistake with his character, and forces a bit of diversity in the build so his class abilities are useful in more situations. I think it will be better for newer or less skilled players, and by spreading out the feats in chains you can spread the power out. Giving access to feat chains this way is less vertical power and more horizontal power.

[John Longarrow]

It reduces the chances that a player makes a major mistake with his character, and forces a bit of diversity in the build so his class abilities are useful in more situations. I think it will be better for newer or less skilled players, and by spreading out the feats in chains you can spread the power out. Giving access to feat chains this way is less vertical power and more horizontal power.

So your proposing this as an aid to new gamers and a way to reduce the ability of fighters to maximize their combat potential?

As an aid that can be followed for new gamers, this makes a lot of sense. A "If you want a build that is defensive, choose "A". If you want a good two weapon fighter, choose "B". If you want an archer, Choose "C". No problem with that.

As far as trying to give versatility at the expense of top end ability, that is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for. Reducing power would mean players simply don't use the class, especially if its stuck with 'feat chains' that don't come on line quickly.

A 6th level fighter should be able to do something really really well. If they can't, why take any levels in fighter? If you can choose from a dozen other melee classes that work better than a fighter the class is less relevant. I'd never play a fighter when there is an intent to make them less capable at their signature function.

[OldTrees1]

As far as trying to give versatility at the expense of top end ability, that is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for. Reducing power would mean players simply don't use the class, especially if its stuck with 'feat chains' that don't come on line quickly.

A 6th level fighter should be able to do something really really well. If they can't, why take any levels in fighter? If you can choose from a dozen other melee classes that work better than a fighter the class is less relevant. I'd never play a fighter when there is an intent to make them less capable at their signature function.

I am not sure it is the opposite of what you are looking for. Fighter currently suffers in both the vertical and horizontal departments. The most consistent way to increase the vertical issue is to give it more feats (and write feats with the design in mind). However this leads to the balance issue where Fighters become one trick ponies in order to reach the balance point you intended. By also including mechanics to force horizontal improvements (floating feats or feat chains) you can make Fighters relevant both vertically and horizontally.

Imagine the skill system as an analogy for a moment. Each skill represents a fighting style and each skill point is a bonus feat. Currently Fighters get too few points and thus they end up too weak even if they overspecialize. If we give them more fighting style points, then they would spend them all in one fighting style in order to reach level appropriate amounts of power. However that is like a rogue with max ranks in Search & no other skills at all. However if we increase the number of points further they will continue to invest in that single fighting style even beyond level appropriate amounts. However if we add a maximum rank system, then we could give the fighter more than 1 fighting style's worth of points and not risk them overspecializing to the point of being overpowered.

In order to make Fighter relevant you need to give them more power than the minimum to make 1 fighting style powerful enough to be level appropriate, but without resulting in Fighters becoming overpowered. So some limit other than scare resources needs to prevent overspecialization.

Although I am not a fan of using feat chains to that end. The feat retraining / floating feat idea seems nicer.

[Morphic tide]

I'll give my ideas on fixing Fighters:

1. Integrate some CW Samurai things. No, I'm not joking, there are builds that pull DC 43 Intimidate, with Panicked on failure, using CW Samurai. This is save or suck AoE on a martial class with existing rules. The situational feat equivalents also give a place to start with more concrete character choices, like Ranger's Fighting Styles. Generally, look at the things in below-t3-classes and see what fits the mundane classes.

2. Give options for doing things that are useful outside combat, like counting Intimidate as half-ranks in Diplomacy, with a limit of your actual Diplomacy ranks to this bonus. Furthermore, giving more stuff to do with Intimidate than just inflict some debuffs would make Intimidate catch up with Diplomacy, by extension making the typical Diplomancer less ahead of Intimidate. Stuff like Moral minuses to Will and Ref, or AC.

3. Disables. We lack some iconic dirty fighting tricks of history in D&D, like attempting to cut often exposed tendons and muscles to cripple. Knocking prone can be made easier. Cutting arteries is a magic item effect(well, Wounding just makes the wound bleed more, but it's the same result), why not make it a feat? Generally, a bunch of injury based debuffs that need varying levels of magic to heal.

4. Make TWF worth it. Why does TWF only add one extra attack? The disadvantages of TWF should be accuracy penalties to all attacks, with the advantage being multiplied attacks, at least at higher levels. Turn TWF into a tree, rather than just a chain. You have the basic accuracy penalty negation, you can get more attacks, you can have effects built around the issues of dodging so many attacks.

5. Make ranged weapons worth it. Multishot in particular can be adjusted around TWF's reworked attack multiplying, perhaps making it so that no one shot can hit the same target. This would neatly give you something to build on, as you now have something to work with for a chain. Increased accuracy, limitation bypasses, added effects and so on, based on what Multishot does. Namely fill the air with well aimed shots.

6. To retain balance, give two handers stuff that has similar effects to attack multiplying. Multiplied damage, AC bypass, Strength to damage boosts and so on as feats, arranged in a chain. The difference between AC bypass and to-hit bonus is that AC bypass only goes up to the target's AC for effect, while to-hit directly counters penalties. And AC bypass can be type limited, like only reducing Dex and Dodge bonuses to AC.

7. Turn the Weapon Focus stuff into a tree, instead of a lengthy chain. You start at weapon focus, get your specialization tree separately with only the base weapon focus needed, add some general attack boosting stuff in there and giving stuff like Lightning Mace for more broad weapon types, like Bows, Swords, blunt-things-in-general and so on. More effects based on damage type than weapon type, really...

8. Make armor-based feats. Lowered Armor Penalty, added AC of various types, doing stuff with shields outside of just having it for AC, bonuses based on what the type of armor is and so on. Stuff like Dodge AC and added to-hit in Light Armor, gaining bonuses to various effects for having a shield locked behind feats, extra penalty reduction in Heavy Armor and so on.

9. Remove the Fighter level requirements from feats. The Fighter will be using their bonus feats to buy stuff on the level of class features by sheer number of feats, leaving the feats open to other classes lets them share the bounty of being able to buy useful abilities that come with high feat taxes that only Fighters can treat as casual. The Fighter can afford to grab a lot more than them, and those other Martial classes have their own feat taxes...

[Morphic tide]

I am not sure it is the opposite of what you are looking for. Fighter currently suffers in both the vertical and horizontal departments. The most consistent way to increase the vertical issue is to give it more feats (and write feats with the design in mind). However this leads to the balance issue where Fighters become one trick ponies in order to reach the balance point you intended. By also including mechanics to force horizontal improvements (floating feats or feat chains) you can make Fighters relevant both vertically and horizontally.

Imagine the skill system as an analogy for a moment. Each skill represents a fighting style and each skill point is a bonus feat. Currently Fighters get too few points and thus they end up too weak even if they overspecialize. If we give them more fighting style points, then they would spend them all in one fighting style in order to reach level appropriate amounts of power. However that is like a rogue with max ranks in Search & no other skills at all. However if we increase the number of points further they will continue to invest in that single fighting style even beyond level appropriate amounts. However if we add a maximum rank system, then we could give the fighter more than 1 fighting style's worth of points and not risk them overspecializing to the point of being overpowered.

In order to make Fighter relevant you need to give them more power than the minimum to make 1 fighting style powerful enough to be level appropriate, but without resulting in Fighters becoming overpowered. So some limit other than scare resources needs to prevent overspecialization.

Although I am not a fan of using feat chains to that end. The feat retraining / floating feat idea seems nicer.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to pick at this. Fighters are already able to get close to level relevant amounts of direct combat power as-is. It's that they have almost nothing in terms of non-combat things, and several types of fighting just don't work well enough to be worth it. The best Fighter build in core is a two hander wielding charger that SPINS TO WIN/runs to cut off heads once they hit the charge. Nothing else works properly at the level needed to be relevant, but that's not as much of a problem.

The problem, again, is that Fighters have literally nothing in-class for non-combat focuses. There are a tiny number of skills with non-combat uses that the Fighter has, and most are travel mechanics skills. Give skill synergy feats as an option to everyone, give feats that allow for using alternate attributes for skills and loosen the limits on what the Fighter can grab as bonus feats. Then, the Fighter can grab feats that give them some capacity in non-combat things.

For the example of skill synergy feats I'll go with, let's use Intimidate as an example. In this case, the first one would make you have a +2 in Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive, while giving you a +2 bonus to Intimidate for each one of those that is above 5, except for Bluff. Essentially, the first feat makes these skills two-way synergies. This is already a notable boost to the Fighter's out of combat stuff. The second feat, however, would replace that effect for bonus to Intimidate counting as half-ranks in the linked skills. This makes it so that a Fighter is functionally maxing out these linked skills if they can invest max skill ranks in them all. Or, more accurately, has half the proficiency in those three other skills that they have in Intimidate, with any insane boosts counting. Of course, this makes Glibness even more insane...

As for feat chains, I prefer feat trees, where you have a base feat chain that branches out into several chains and single feats, all linked together thematically.

[Lans]

So your proposing this as an aid to new gamers and a way to reduce the ability of fighters to maximize their combat potential?

As far as trying to give versatility at the expense of top end ability, that is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for. Reducing power would mean players simply don't use the class, especially if its stuck with 'feat chains' that don't come on line quickly.

A 6th level fighter should be able to do something really really well. If they can't, why take any levels in fighter? If you can choose from a dozen other melee classes that work better than a fighter the class is less relevant. I'd never play a fighter when there is an intent to make them less capable at their signature function.

I'm not looking at reducing top level ability, they still would get the 11 bonus feats, so at 5th they would have 2 styles with 2 feats each, and 3 bonus feats. At 10th they would pick up a new style gain 3 feats for that style, and gain a feat for each of the previous styles, and a regular bonus feat. If you think thats not enough you can give a style every 3 or 4 levels and make them 6 or 7 feats deep.

Edit- I would also re tilt the chains so they are only 7 feats deep.

[Metahuman1]

On phone sorry for spelling.






First Level Class Features:

Chassie: Full BAB. D10 HD. All Good Saves.


Proficenty: A fighter is proficient with ALL Armors, Shield's and Weapons. Including Improvised weapons.

Skills: 4 + Int Mod. Choose one of three class skill packages. 1: Search. Hide. Slight of Hand. Escape Artist. Move Silently. Survival. 2: Diplomacy. Bluff. Sense Motive. Gather information. Forgery. Disguise. Slight of Hand. 3: Spell Craft. All Knowledge Skills. (If in a game were specialized skills are used for certain information, like Martial Lore in a Tome of Battle Enabled Game, those are also part of this package. )


Mighty Range: A fighter uses his choice of Strength or Dex and adds it to both attack and damage rolls when throwing a weapon. Further, a fighter using a bow or cross bow or other none thrown ranged weapon can apply power attack to shots taken with it, and his ?Str Mod to damage, even if the weapon normally does not allow this. He also adds an additional 20ft of range to the weapon if it is not a Composite Bow.

Note: This helps keep the ranged attack users in the game.

Trained charge: A fighter who charges can, at the end of the charge, preform a full attack action. This works as the Pounce Ability.

Decisive Blow. Works as the monks Decisive Strike Class feature. However, it can be used in conjunction with other full round actions, such as full attacks or charges. And it can be used on any weapon the fighter is proficient with. It Multiplies damage from extra weight or falling if improvised and/or thrown weapons in use.

3rd Level: Uncanny dodge.

Evasion.

Foot Work: A fighter may use his swift action to move up to the distance he could using a move action and any form of movement he has access to.

5th Level: Aptitude: A fighter may spend one full round action retraining a feat for another that he otherwise meets the prequiqisies for. He can do this on as many feats as he wishes when ever he makes use of this class feature.

Play to your talents: A fighter can Assign a none standard attribute to one save, group of skills (Group defined as skills that use the same attribute for the purposes of this class feature.), feat dependent on an attribute (such as Combat Reflexes.) or to there armor class or initive checks, for every 3 fighter levels he has. For example, a fighter can choose to base his reflex save on constitution, initive on strength, or Combat Reflexes uses per round on Intelligence.

Once picked these cannot be changed until the next level is gained.

7th Level: Metal.

Improved Uncanny dodge.

Improved Decisive Blow: You may now use this feature on or with your choice of a standard action or full round action attack.

9th Level: Defensive Roll.

Sturdy: A fighter may treat himself as One size Category larger then he really is for Combat maneuver's and other situations were being larger is beneficial (such as resisting swallow whole.), for every 2 fighter levels he has, up to a maximum of colossal + Size category. This does not increase Reach, attributes, weapon damage size/size of weapon that may be used, or space taken up by the fighter.

11th level class features. Improved Evasion.

Superior Decisive Blow: You may now use decisive blow on any attack with out expending actions.

13th level class feature: Improved Sturdy: A fighter, in addition to the described bonuses on combat maneuver checks from Sturdy, gains a +4 per size category bonus he has unlocked. Once he is gaining bonuses equal to Size category Colossal +, he does not keep gaining improvements to this extra bonus.

15th Level class feature: Tactical movement. Through bursts of adrenaline, you may move supernaturally fast. You may, as a swift action, teleport up to as far as you could with a move action. This effect is supernatural, and countered by Dimensional Anchor, Anticipate Teleport, and Antimagic Field, as if it were a spell.

17th level class feature: Customization. A fighter may spend an hour, focusing his near super human understanding of combat, to infuse normal weapons and armor with magical properties. If he sells these items, the link is broken by the symbolic action, and they become mundane again. This feature otherwise works as the Kensai's signature weapon ability, but can be applied to as many weapons and armors as the fighter wishes.

20th level class feature: Devastating accuracy. A fighter may take 20 on attack rolls. They may choose to take this even after they have rolled a given attack roll. by taking 20, they forgo the benefits of a critical hit for that given attack.



Assume a normal fighter bonus feat progression in play.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to pick at this. Fighters are already able to get close to level relevant amounts of direct combat power as-is. It's that they have almost nothing in terms of non-combat things, and several types of fighting just don't work well enough to be worth it. The best Fighter build in core is a two hander wielding charger that SPINS TO WIN/runs to cut off heads once they hit the charge. Nothing else works properly at the level needed to be relevant, but that's not as much of a problem.
Do not confuse the damage per hit of the single fighting style for being able to reach level relevant amounts of power in that or other fighting styles.

1) You have to reach your foe before an attack roll is even relevant (I have not seen a transdimensional aerial charge). Then you need to make sure that the offense you deal is productive (sometimes raw damage is not enough to defeat a foe).
2) And yes, it is a problem for there to be only 1 fighting style that gets even close to relevant. If this were a static class like Barbarian or Monk it would be less of a problem. However Fighter chooses its perks so it must have multiple viable fighting styles or we would be betraying the player by giving them false choices.


The problem, again, is that Fighters have literally nothing in-class for non-combat focuses.
True but not their only problem. Why not solve both?

[arkangel111]

I am extremely confused. To me it seems the easy fix is to drop fighter and add ToB/PoW to your game. Yet every time it's brought up in the thread it's either shot down or completely ignored. ToB/PoW are both great options for making a better fighter yet instead you seem to WANT to do a complete overhaul of the system that will have far more impact than you can foresee.
To me it seems easiest to use ToB/PoW and add some maneuvers and stances to reach your flavor of campaign/character.
My home games will never have fighter as an option, the class is irrelevant and only a major overhaul of the entire game will fix it (and you'll likely end up similar to ToB/PoW anyway), I see an easy fighter fix (remove it) that requires almost 0 effort to throw into a game. I personally always feel feat starved anyway so likely will just give all martials fighter bonus feats anyway.
My $.02

[John Longarrow]

I am extremely confused. To me it seems the easy fix is to drop fighter and add ToB/PoW to your game. Yet every time it's brought up in the thread it's either shot down or completely ignored. ToB/PoW are both great options for making a better fighter yet instead you seem to WANT to do a complete overhaul of the system that will have far more impact than you can foresee.
To me it seems easiest to use ToB/PoW and add some maneuvers and stances to reach your flavor of campaign/character.
My home games will never have fighter as an option, the class is irrelevant and only a major overhaul of the entire game will fix it (and you'll likely end up similar to ToB/PoW anyway), I see an easy fighter fix (remove it) that requires almost 0 effort to throw into a game. I personally always feel feat starved anyway so likely will just give all martials fighter bonus feats anyway.
My $.02

I already use ToB. I'm not looking to simply drop the class entirely as it does something different than ToB.

No ToB build makes for a great archer for example. Likewise the feats available to a fighter should give them a lot of options that ToB doesn't emphasize.

EDIT:
Likewise just saying "Play a GISH/CODZILLA" isn't the intent either. Those can blow any ToB build out of the water anyway, but are not in line with what I'm looking for.

[NerdHut]

I already use ToB. I'm not looking to simply drop the class entirely as it does something different than ToB.

No ToB build makes for a great archer for example. Likewise the feats available to a fighter should give them a lot of options that ToB doesn't emphasize.

EDIT:
Likewise just saying "Play a GISH/CODZILLA" isn't the intent either. Those can blow any ToB build out of the water anyway, but are not in line with what I'm looking for.

This is why I want to fix the fighter. It's versatile in-combat, it just lacks power and versatility out-of-combat. I've been working on a rework of Fighter that will make it more fun. It's actually strongly based on PF's Fighter class, just tweaked to fit back into 3.5.

People like Fighter. It means something to us in terms of roleplay. That's why we want to fix it. ToB classes don't feel the same.

[JoshuaZ]

There have been a bunch of different good suggestions here. I'd like to note that if one doesn't want to have fighters do martial initiating, then one may want to check out Sir Percival's Bladecraft system which he's still adding options on but is essentially playable in its current form (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?507496-Heron-Marked-The-Art-of-Bladecraft-(v2)). It is a very original take and seems to help a lot with making fighters feel relevant while still probably not feeling "too Wuxia" for the people who dislike that.

[Seerow]

This is why I want to fix the fighter. It's versatile in-combat, it just lacks power and versatility out-of-combat. I've been working on a rework of Fighter that will make it more fun. It's actually strongly based on PF's Fighter class, just tweaked to fit back into 3.5.

People like Fighter. It means something to us in terms of roleplay. That's why we want to fix it. ToB classes don't feel the same.

The Fighter does not have versatility in combat. That's the fundamental disconnect we're running into. You can design a Fighter to have combat versatility [Shameless Plug] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?334362-The-Fighter-Revitalized), but by default it does not have that.

[NerdHut]

The Fighter does not have versatility in combat. That's the fundamental disconnect we're running into. You can design a Fighter to have combat versatility [Shameless Plug] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?334362-The-Fighter-Revitalized), but by default it does not have that.

I mean in the sense that you can build a two-weapon fighter, a two-handed fighter, sword-and-board, heavy armor specialist, etc. Each individual fighter doesn't have much wiggle room, but the fighter chassis allows for several different styles.

[Cosi]

I mean in the sense that you can build a two-weapon fighter, a two-handed fighter, sword-and-board, heavy armor specialist, etc. Each individual fighter doesn't have much wiggle room, but the fighter chassis allows for several different styles.

Uh, sure? So does the Warblade, the Cleric, and every other character you might build to do physical combat. That's not by any means an uniquely Fighter capability.

[Nifft]

I mean in the sense that you can build a two-weapon fighter, a two-handed fighter, sword-and-board, heavy armor specialist, etc. Each individual fighter doesn't have much wiggle room, but the fighter chassis allows for several different styles.

It sure does.

And those styles give the appearance of relevance.

But in combat, they fail to behave in ways that are actually relevant, and that's the disconnect.

Out of combat, they fail even harder at behaving in ways that are relevant to solving the non-combat encounter, so that's bad too.

======


Basically: Fighters were never relevant in this edition.

"Make Fighters Great Again" is just an empty slogan.

[NerdHut]

Basically: Fighters were never relevant in this edition.

"Make Fighters Great Again" is just an empty slogan.

I'm not advocating "Make Fighters Great Again." I'm advocating "Make Fighters As Great As They Should Have Been To Start With! Dang It WotC, I'm Looking At You! You Done Goofed!" That slogan rolls right off the tongue.

I know Fighters started off pretty pitiful in 3.0/3.5. This isn't about when Fighters started being a weak class, it's about making them into (at least) a decent class now.

[Anthrowhale]

Many suggestions here focus on bigger numbers and new abilities for a fighter. Instead, I'd suggest focusing on versatility. Something like:

(1) The fighter may choose any 7 skills as class skills.
(2) Every feat is a fighter bonus feat.
(3) Every day, a fighter may spend one hour to swap any subset of fighter bonus feats for others.

This makes the fighter into a feat-wizard, strongly augmenting their versatility.

[Deophaun]

Many suggestions here focus on bigger numbers and new abilities for a fighter. Instead, I'd suggest focusing on versatility. Something like:

(1) The fighter may choose any 7 skills as class skills.
(2) Every feat is a fighter bonus feat.
(3) Every day, a fighter may spend one hour to swap any subset of fighter bonus feats for others.

This makes the fighter into a feat-wizard, strongly augmenting their versatility.
That just makes a one or two level dip more attractive for other classes (Wizard dips fighter for all the crafting feats! Sorcerer dips fighter for all the spells!). It does little to make Fighter 20 good.

[Anthrowhale]

That just makes a one or two level dip more attractive for other classes (Wizard dips fighter for all the crafting feats! Sorcerer dips fighter for all the spells!). It does little to make Fighter 20 good.

The goal isn't surpassing a Wizard but rather making a fighter relevant. A feat-wizard like this can be relevant in many circumstances.

[OldTrees1]

That just makes a one or two level dip more attractive for other classes (Wizard dips fighter for all the crafting feats! Sorcerer dips fighter for all the spells!). It does little to make Fighter 20 good.

Your argument is incomplete to the point of being fallacious. Abrupt Jaunt makes a Wizard 1 dip more attractive but that does not stop it from improving Wizard 20.

Any buff to Fighter 2 that is not made obsolete by Fighter levels 3-20 will buff Fighter 20.


As for "make any feat a fighter feat", there are plenty of good combat feats or utility feats a Fighter might want/need to take that are not on the Fighter list. Expanding the list is one way to allow the Fighter to take these feats. So it would indeed buff Fighter.

As for "allow the fighter to swap between bonus feats like a mage swaps between spells", this is one of the ways to expand horizontal optimization further than the desired vertical optimization would otherwise allow. Obviously this also buffs Fighter.

The question is not about whether these would buff Fighter (since they categorically and obviously do), but whether these are the right buffs to implement.

[NerdHut]

Many suggestions here focus on bigger numbers and new abilities for a fighter. Instead, I'd suggest focusing on versatility. Something like:

(1) The fighter may choose any 7 skills as class skills.
(2) Every feat is a fighter bonus feat.
(3) Every day, a fighter may spend one hour to swap any subset of fighter bonus feats for others.

This makes the fighter into a feat-wizard, strongly augmenting their versatility.

A better option might be to keep the current fighter feat list intact (subject to tweaking, but to keep the combat theme going), and to make general feats available to choose at later levels. That will discourage spellcasters from dipping into the class just for extra feats.

I do like the idea of a fighter being able to retrain fighter feats with ease though. Each day he can prepare for a different type of challenge.

[OldTrees1]

A better option might be to keep the current fighter feat list intact (subject to tweaking, but to keep the combat theme going), and to make general feats available to choose at later levels. That will discourage spellcasters from dipping into the class just for extra feats.

I do like the idea of a fighter being able to retrain fighter feats with ease though. Each day he can prepare for a different type of challenge.

So something like:


Bonus Feats
At every level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat. These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

At 11th level and onwards, the fighter is not limited to only selecting feats noted as fighter bonus feats.

Once per day, by spending 1 hour of meditation and practice, a fighter can change the feats they chose as bonus feats. Bonus feats awarded before 11th level can only be swapped for other feats noted as fighter bonus feats.

[NerdHut]

So something like:

That or a similar set-up, yeah.

[Arbane]

A better option might be to keep the current fighter feat list intact (subject to tweaking, but to keep the combat theme going), and to make general feats available to choose at later levels. That will discourage spellcasters from dipping into the class just for extra feats.

I do like the idea of a fighter being able to retrain fighter feats with ease though. Each day he can prepare for a different type of challenge.

Pathfinder came up with the Martial Master Fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/martial-master), who has a few 'floating' feats they can assign on the fly - for one minute each. It's still a Nice Thing for Fighters. (Paizo has come out with a few of these lately.)

(Bizarrely, it's a Nicer Thing For Warsighted Oracles, who get access to Martial Flexibility at first level, not fifth. What gives, Paizo? :smallconfused: )

[Nifft]

I'm not advocating "Make Fighters Great Again." I'm advocating "Make Fighters As Great As They Should Have Been To Start With! Dang It WotC, I'm Looking At You! You Done Goofed!" That slogan rolls right off the tongue.

I know Fighters started off pretty pitiful in 3.0/3.5. This isn't about when Fighters started being a weak class, it's about making them into (at least) a decent class now.

Looking backwards, what made Fighters relevant in 1e was:
- Great saving throws.
- Faster level advancement than Wizards.
- Having more attacks meant always going first in combat.
- No bonus slots meant that a Wizard's spells were a very limited tactical resource. Using sleep meant winning one fight. You didn't get to do that all day.


Looking forwards, what makes Fighters relevant in 4e is:
- Toughness. The Fighter "skeleton" is strong.
- Tactical options. 4e strongly relies on the combat grid, and Fighter powers do a good job of exploiting enemy grid positioning with stuff like forced movement & cleaving damage into two adjacent foes.
- Defender Marking. There are a bunch of "YOUR OPPONENT IS ME" abilities which try to force a foe to attack a harder target, and the Fighter has a good one.


Looking forward more, what makes Fighters relevant in 5e is:
- Best stats or most feats in the game. Fighters get more ability boosts than any other class (and you can convert any ability boost into a feat).
- Most attacks in the game. Most combat classes top out at 2 attacks per round; a Fighter can get 4.
- Action economy exploitation. Fighters have the ability to take an extra action a few times per day. It's strong.

[arkangel111]

I see the main problem with not scrapping the class and finding another (ToB/PoW) is that any buff or change to feats affects every class ultimately leaving the fighter in the same niche (the trash). I still think it would be easier and would have far less impact on the rest of the game if you made a new discipline or 2 that grabbed what exactly it is you are wanting. I Personally, am looking at designing more maneuvers that keep the "feel" of mundane.

[Arbane]

I see the main problem with not scrapping the class and finding another (ToB/PoW) is that any buff or change to feats affects every class ultimately leaving the fighter in the same niche (the trash).

ISTR reading that at some point in D&D3's development Feats were for Fighters only. Any reason we can't have more feats that require Fighter Level X, where X > 2? (Or some other way of phrasing it that doesn't hose characters who prestige-class out of Fighter.)

[Deophaun]

The goal isn't surpassing a Wizard but rather making a fighter relevant.
Speaking of relevancy, this point is irrelevant, as the post you quoted said nothing about surpassing a wizard.

A feat-wizard like this can be relevant in many circumstances.
Yes, as a two level dip for any class that has actual features; the best feats are in support of those features. It is irrelevant to making a Fighter.

Your argument is incomplete to the point of being fallacious. Abrupt Jaunt makes a Wizard 1 dip more attractive but that does not stop it from improving Wizard 20.
But Abrupt Jaunt does little for improving Wizard 20. Is there a fallacy where you change someone's argument around so that it's something that wasn't stated or argued? Let's ask the scarecrow if he knows.

[OldTrees1]

But Abrupt Jaunt does little for improving Wizard 20. Is there a fallacy where you change someone's argument around so that it's something that wasn't stated or argued? Let's ask the scarecrow if he knows.

So you were not using "does little" as a shorthand for "does next to nothing"? If I read that wrong, then tell me so. You focused the majority of that post on the effect of a dip on a non Fighter and so your conclusion "does little for Fighter" had no support to draw from in your post. Hence why I said incomplete to the point of fallacious. You did not have any premises or statements in that post that lent themselves to your conclusion.

[Anthrowhale]

Speaking of relevancy, this point is irrelevant, as the post you quoted said nothing about surpassing a wizard.

I was assuming an implication that the goal was getting Fighter 20 to rival Wizard 20. If that's not so, then I don't understand what you were trying to say.

Incidentally, I also disagree with your dip thesis since a floating feat is not worth the lost spell progression until at least level 18. Instead, a Wizard should keep full casting and use Psychic Reformation to rejigger their last feat if necessary.

[John Longarrow]

Several people have advocated "floating feats" or "changeable feats". In game play, what would be the real difference between being able to choose a feat tree at the beginning of the day/combat/round and just having that feat?

Wouldn't it be effectively the same as just saying "OK, at this level you get this bunch of feats"? Either that style will be relevant all of the time (due to gear / stats / character build / RP) or it won't be used. If it is relevant, why deprive the fighter of it at other times?

[Seerow]

Several people have advocated "floating feats" or "changeable feats". In game play, what would be the real difference between being able to choose a feat tree at the beginning of the day/combat/round and just having that feat?

Wouldn't it be effectively the same as just saying "OK, at this level you get this bunch of feats"? Either that style will be relevant all of the time (due to gear / stats / character build / RP) or it won't be used. If it is relevant, why deprive the fighter of it at other times?

The main issue is synergy. If you give a Fighter 20 feats by level 10, he can and will invest all 20 of those feats into a single fighting style and be a monster at that fighting style, but worthless outside of it.

Give him 20 feats by level 10 that must be split up into 4 fighting styles with 5 feats each, that he can change between at will, and he'll be able to be good at 4 distinct things; the lack of synergy encourages the player to seek out other things to do.


For example, my Fighter fix gives the Fighter up to 4 distinct Fighting Styles that he can switch between easily. Each of his fighter bonus feats gives a feat for each style. So by level 20 he has 44 feats, 11 in each style. This usually ends up one of two ways. Either the player picks a primary style, and uses his baseline feats to supplement that, but then he has 3 other styles to use situationally. Alternatively the player goes for a more balanced approach using his baseline feats on generically useful things and switches between styles regularly. In either case it ends up a lot more balanced, more diverse, and more manageable than the character would be if they just had 44+ feats active at all times.

[John Longarrow]

Down side to the concept of "Switching feats" is that if feels like a video game solution not something organic.

For a wizard, the whole "Prepare spells ahead of time" has been justified with "OK, you spend a minute getting this spell ready, but when you cast you only spend a couple seconds completing it" in the past. This lets a game mechanic used for balance at least have some justification other than "Hey, its really just a game so go with it".

For feat chains you can justify, to an extent at least, learning A, then B, then C and calling them a "Style" which people generally learn. This is similar to how many martial arts are taught.

Changing between styles though feels like saying "OK, now you know how to punch but you have forgotten everything about using a bow". More important it feels like saying "OK, you want to be the best archer, you spend all your time practicing archery, now you have mastered using a shield".

For me it doesn't say "Balanced" or "Diverse", it says "You play your character how I decide".

I don't see anything wrong with letting a fighter be a lot better at one thing than any other melee character. If the PLAYER wants to build something optimized for one function I don't think the rules should prevent it, much like there is no rule that says a spell caster can't load up on ONLY offensive fire spells.

To achieve variety I'm expecting the player to learn about the game, find out that building a one trick pony isn't the best, and then taking their experience and applying it to their character. I'm also sure that what that player finds works in a given game will be different than what I would propose would work in my game. Hence why I've found every published "Style" for monks/barbarians/what ever isn't what I'd choose. I really don't want to give a player several different poor choices for THEIR game and tell them "OK, this is balance so choose between them".

I see no problem with recommended sets of feats as "Here is something you may want". I see it as a problem when if I tell them "You HAVE to choose between these".

[Seerow]

Changing between styles though feels like saying "OK, now you know how to punch but you have forgotten everything about using a bow". More important it feels like saying "OK, you want to be the best archer, you spend all your time practicing archery, now you have mastered using a shield".

That depends entirely on how hard it is to switch. Like for my fighter it ranges between a move action up to an Immediate Action. So it's not so much "You forgot how to punch a dude" it's more along the lines of shifting stances; which is totally in line with typical martial arts styles.


For me it doesn't say "Balanced" or "Diverse", it says "You play your character how I decide".

I don't see anything wrong with letting a fighter be a lot better at one thing than any other melee character. If the PLAYER wants to build something optimized for one function I don't think the rules should prevent it, much like there is no rule that says a spell caster can't load up on ONLY offensive fire spells.


If you're going to take exception to the idea of designing versatility into a class I'm not sure what the point of a discussion is. I mean if you really like the idea of the ultimate swordsman you can totally do that with stances; set it up something like one style for uber-charging shenanigans and mobility, another style for special combat maneuvers (tripping, bull rushing, etc); another style for AoO control shenanigans; and another one for fighting defensively/turtling up. It's not like anyone's forcing you to go take up ranged combat or TWFing if you don't want to. But it does force you to diversify how you utilize your abilities and making a conscious choice of how you are fighting on a round to round basis, which exactly the sort of gameplay mechanic that Fighters currently lack.

[Ludic]

Maybe make fighters an exception to the rule that Keen and Improved Critical don't stack, for instance, or even give them access to improved crit modifiers.

Normally, I'm very against houseruling; except when it comes to viability. I do this one, and when I am not the DM, I typically talk the DM into it. But only with fighters. And only if that weapon is also their weapon focus and weapon spec weapon. (Bit my current DM when I helped a buddy roll up an Earth Dwarf Half-Minotaur Fighter/War Hulk monkeygripping a Huge Fullblade though. Nothing like a 49 strength and the ability to hit everything in your threat range with one swing and a 12-20 crit threat on a weapon that deals 4d8+str and a half, plus other enhancements.)

I also allow fighters feint as a free action from the get go, because that's something those characters would do, or at least have knowledge of doing.

I treat fighter charges as a pounce.

I allow the dungeoncrasher ACF without losing bonus feats, so long as you take Shock Trooper, in fact, I incorporate it into the feat itself.

I allow fighters to ignore monkeygrip penalty and TWF penalties, unless they're TWF with a monkeygrip weapon, that's a no go. I don't care if you're a fighter, if you are a medium wielding large rapiers, you are not TWF without penalty. Period. Although it is amusing to watch.

I usually favor my martial with magic items to. It's very uncommon when I'm DMing to not have the barb or fighter find an animated shield early on.

I grant my fighters a bonded weapon from level one that is allowed one +1 enhancement bonus for free, I grow the weapon with the fighter and it will eventually become intelligent (sometimes). Bonded growth is separate from other enhancement bonuses so his bonded sword could have a total of +20 enhancement. However, the bonded increases aren't just normal things. I won't give you a flaming bonus from bonding, so much as I give you a weapon that creates a scorching heat when it connects, mimicking the effects of the Matter Agitation Power, (XPH) increasing the effect to the next level each subsequent strike, resetting after every third hit. (1 point of bonus, 1d4 points of bonus, 1d4+1d6 points of bonus, back to 1 point of bonus).

I typically allow my heavy armor fighters to stack miss chances and normally nonstackable bonuses to a point. I tell them when they can't stack anymore.

I usually ignore the fighter bonus feat selection and let them take whatever.

I give them Uncanny Dodge in up to heavy non-exotic armor.

And more skill points, and an expanded skilllist based on their backstory that I will build with them if the don't bring me one.

There's some other stuff I do for my fighters as well that I don't really remember off hand.


I was assuming an implication that the goal was getting Fighter 20 to rival Wizard 20. If that's not so, then I don't understand what you were trying to say.

I believe the goal was to make the fighter a relevant threat at level 20. Not surpassing a tier 1 or tier 2 class. But rather making him someone the BBEGs is going to look at and say 'Well, crap, I have to deal with him'.

[John Longarrow]

I was assuming an implication that the goal was getting Fighter 20 to rival Wizard 20. If that's not so, then I don't understand what you were trying to say.

Relevant isn't equal to. A fighter 20 should be able to take on crap tons of moderate threat enemies for a very long time. Wizard is going to be able to do world changing stuff with spells. They should be dealing with different issues, but the fighter isn't going to "Rival" a wizard is versatility because, well... magic.

That said, the fighter should still have something to do in a high level campaign when the wizard is pulling demons to do his fighting for him.

[John Longarrow]

If you're going to take exception to the idea of designing versatility into a class I'm not sure what the point of a discussion is. I mean if you really like the idea of the ultimate swordsman you can totally do that with stances; set it up something like one style for uber-charging shenanigans and mobility, another style for special combat maneuvers (tripping, bull rushing, etc); another style for AoO control shenanigans; and another one for fighting defensively/turtling up. It's not like anyone's forcing you to go take up ranged combat or TWFing if you don't want to. But it does force you to diversify how you utilize your abilities and making a conscious choice of how you are fighting on a round to round basis, which exactly the sort of gameplay mechanic that Fighters currently lack.

Just so I understand, you OBJECT to the player being able to choose what feats they take because you want versatility? Just to be clear, telling the player they can't choose their feats but have to choose from one of N "Styles" is supposed to increase versatility?

Not sure if you have the same definition of versatility as I do, especially if they don't get to use the different "styles" interchangeably during a fight.

I've got a friend who learned a hard style growing up but also was on the wrestling team. In a real fight he'd have no problem changing between a block, a kick, and taking someone to the ground. No need to change "Style" or "Stance" since he could use any of the techniques he'd learned any time they were relevant. So I'm trying to figure out how limiting a players choices and then limiting which of those they can use at once increases versatility. Maybe I'm totally missing something your saying but it looks like you want to reduce player choice.

[Seerow]

Just so I understand, you OBJECT to the player being able to choose what feats they take because you want versatility? Just to be clear, telling the player they can't choose their feats but have to choose from one of N "Styles" is supposed to increase versatility?


No, that is not what was said at all. The player can pick whatever feats they want, the feats they pick get grouped into styles that they switch between at will.

The only thing I am telling them is "If you are using this set of feats you can't use that other set of feats", aka saying "No you cannot spend all of your feats on one super narrow trick, broaden your horizons a little bit"


I've got a friend who learned a hard style growing up but also was on the wrestling team. In a real fight he'd have no problem changing between a block, a kick, and taking someone to the ground. No need to change "Style" or "Stance" since he could use any of the techniques he'd learned any time they were relevant. So I'm trying to figure out how limiting a players choices and then limiting which of those they can use at once increases versatility. Maybe I'm totally missing something your saying but it looks like you want to reduce player choice.


So you've never heard of needing to reposition or adjust the way you're standing or holding your weapons to fight in a certain way? Because seriously I never got beyond basic martial arts and we still had at least 3 different stances, and different techniques that would be used within those stances. Yes, you can shift stances quickly and be able to adapt to the situation, which is exactly what I suggest being able to do. We're talking about switching with a move action or a swift action (aka an adjustment measured in seconds), not minutes or hours.

[OldTrees1]

Just so I understand, you OBJECT to the player being able to choose what feats they take because you want versatility?
Nope. Nobody is objecting to that.

Let's talk hypotheticals.

You redesign Fighter and make it so a 10th level fighter with 14 feats in one combat style is balanced against level appropriate threats.

I want fighters to have more than one combat style so I naively triple their feats. Now I have a 10th level Fighter with 42 feats with me expecting a 14/14/14 split.

John Smith sees my Fighter and spends all 42 of their 10th level Fighter's feats in one combat style and becomes grossly overpowered for their level.

I return to the drawing board and try to find a way to increase the number of combat styles a Fighter has. The answer, I can give Fighters more than the bare minimum of feats to have 1 combat style by preventing the Fighter from spending more than a level appropriate amount (the 14 you originally gave them) in any one style.

This is the design challenge of all point based improvement systems (the fighter behaves like having feat points to spend towards various combat styles). How do you design the system so that players are not forced to choose between being one trick ponies and being underpowered?

[John Longarrow]

So you've never heard of needing to reposition or adjust the way you're standing or holding your weapons to fight in a certain way? Because seriously I never got beyond basic martial arts and we still had at least 3 different stances, and different techniques that would be used within those stances. Yes, you can shift stances quickly and be able to adapt to the situation, which is exactly what I suggest being able to do. We're talking about switching with a move action or a swift action (aka an adjustment measured in seconds), not minutes or hours.

Hm... When I was learning martial arts we were always changing what "stance" we'd be in depending on what we were trying to do. Shift to kick, slide foot back as you block, ect.. Didn't take whole seconds and was part of what we were doing. It didn't mean I wouldn't be able to switch to where I could kick quickly (free action) if the situation warranted either. Course much of this does depend on both the skill of the individual and how well their teacher instructs. Please note though, the styles I learned were intended to be pretty brutally practical so there wasn't a lot of ritual to them.

I still don't see how limiting what a fighter can do would enhance versatility. Saying you can only use some of your feats at any one time does not seem to add versatility. Maybe if you could give an example of the mechanics you are thinking of would help. From what I've read it reads as "The fighter gets more feats than he does now, but can use less at any given time". This doesn't seem to enhance the class.

Edit:
OldTrees1,

You make being a one trick pony for a fighter as useless as being a one trick pony (casting spells) is for a wizard?

[Seerow]

I still don't see how limiting what a fighter can do would enhance versatility. Saying you can only use some of your feats at any one time does not seem to add versatility. Maybe if you could give an example of the mechanics you are thinking of would help. From what I've read it reads as "The fighter gets more feats than he does now, but can use less at any given time". This doesn't seem to enhance the class.


I posted a link to my fix a page or two back, or it's also in my sig, if you want to check it out. But the basic idea behind the combat styles (our main point of contention here) is in providing the ability to change how you fight on the fly, rather than always fighting the exact same way. Also for what it's worth you're not getting fewer that you can use at any given time. It's not like I'm taking you from having a Fighter with 11 feats to one with 20 feats but only use 5 at a time (which would be a nerf). It's going from a Fighter with 11 feats to a Fighter with 44 feats of which he can use 11 at a time. So you have the same capability as a fighter now, but you have that capability in 4 different areas instead of just in one. It is a demonstrable improvement in versatility over the baseline. By itself it's not enough, but it is a good starting point, and one that helps root the fighter in combat feats; which is something most people looking for a Fighter fix rather than a Warblade tend to want.

Also it's worth reitterating the analogy that OldTrees has been making. Just giving the Fighter a ton of extra feats with no restrictions would be like removing the skill point cap from Rogue. Now suddenly you have rogues with 32+ ranks in hide at level 1 but nothing else. They're really good at being sneaky, but are they actually better or more versatile for having the option to do that? I would argue no, forcing the rogue to split up his skill points encourages a more versatile rogue. Similarly, forcing the Fighter to divide up feats gives you a more versatile fighter, as long as the number of feats the Fighter gets for each style is enough to actually stay competitive.

[OldTrees1]

Edit:
OldTrees1,

You make being a one trick pony for a fighter as useless as being a one trick pony (casting spells) is for a wizard?

So you are considering a possible solution of making every specialization broad enough that nobody is worried if the Fighter only can do that specialization (just as nobody is worried if the wizard can only cast spells)?

Since each player is choosing their feats themselves, how do you cause their specializations to be that broad? What prevents someone from ending up more powerful but less versatile by focusing only on a smaller subsection? If they can gain above level appropriate power by shrinking their versatility, then Fighter will become as unbalanced and broken as Wizard is. (but we should aim for higher quality design than WotC did)

Luckily there are ways to cause the player's choices to still result in broad enough specializations that end up at level appropriate amounts of power. Floating Feats and Feat Chains are 2 proposed mechanics to achieve this goal. There may be other mechanics to achieve this goal. The point is the goal of "having versatile and strong Fighters" and that we need to design a method to reach that goal.

That said neither Floating Feats nor enforcing versatility though Feat Chains is without its downsides. I will not repeat those downsides because you have stated them already. Perhaps their is a better mechanic we can find?

Sidenote: I really like the max ranks mechanic WotC used with the skill system to solve this kind of problem. By limiting the maximum investment as a function of level they were able to give everyone many times more skill points than they otherwise could. However I do not think an adaptation of that specific mechanic would work well for feats.

[Morphic tide]

Okay, to explain what this "fighting style" thing looks like to me is that you'd get slightly more feats than current Fighter in each style, (current Fighter has 11 feats at 10th level, 12 if Human) and several of these styles. You'd have to unlimit what feats can be chosen by redefining what counts as a Fighter feat, so that they get almost every combat-relevant feat, but all that still fails to solve the main Fighter problem: No out of combat focus options. At least Rogue gets the skills to go social.

One way to solve this is to redefine class skills. Make it so that you get bonuses to class skills instead of penalties to cross-class skills. Yes, this makes the classes that focus on the Diplomacy issue to be even better at it, but Fighter becomes competent at Diplomacy. Also, the almost-mandatory skills stop being something crippling to not be on your class list. Another way to implement the skill solution is to give every character free floating skills to be considered class skills for all levels. This solves basically every problem with class skills with minimal new issues(Yes, diplomancing becomes better for Wizards, but that just makes them less lower than a Bard with one PRC).

Another way to solve it is to look for ways to give Fighters access to feats that give them bonuses to Diplomacy and other non-combat skills. Like my proposed skill synergy feats, only a bit less crazy. Maybe a chain built on Dazzling Display (Yes, it's a PF feat, but PF has a lot of martial support to use in 3.5) that makes you better at more social things bit by bit and adds synergies to Intimidate. This pulls double duty by giving the martial classes an important combat action: Save-or-suck. The flee in terror detail is a nice touch...

E: Another thing that can be done which was mentioned is removing various penalties to attacks. A class feature that lets them negate some number of penalties on attacks, perhaps scaling with level in both strength of penalty and number, would make them significantly more versatile and significantly closer to the "master of melee" they tend to be seen as trying to be. You can negate the penalty for wielding a weapon too large for you, or for wielding a two handed weapon in one hand, at fairly early levels. At level 20, you might do stuff like use two Huge Full Swords as if they were appropriate size Shortswords.

Overall, it looks like the people on this thread are missing the main issue: Fighter needs out of combat abilities. They are on par for damage, especially because they have no limits on how long they can deal damage beyond survival, but they lack anything to deal with non-combat situations.

[Milo v3]

My fighter fix gave them increased skills per level, more class skills, bonus to identifying monsters equal to con mod, increased speed when it comes to retraining feats, free variant multiclassing without having to trade away feats (and options if none of the VCM's fit), able to buy cheap gear slightly cheaper, additional five foot-steps per turn, bonuses for mass combat, skill unlocks for a limited number of skills, and an ability which lets them get contacts easier in the form of "Old Allies".

Increases the character concepts and narrative options of fighters by a surprising amount (and lets fighters actually meet the character options the fluff suggests).

[Melcar]

With the myriad books that have come out many classes have received boons in one form or another. The fighter has more feats to select from for their bonus feats but, unlike some other classes, has not stood the test of time well. I do have a couple changes that should return the fighter to its original role, master of melee, and allow it to return as a viable straight build.

The Four changes I'm considering for my next table top game are;
1) Bonus fighter feat every level (previously taken can be changed on even levels, so long as they are not required for another feat).
2) Fighters do not need to meet stat requirements for bonus feats. As such a Dex 8 fighter CAN go all the way up the TWF tree.
3) Fighters get 4 + int skill points / level with the following skills added to their list; Listen, Spot, Survival.
4) If using Tome of Battle, each level in Fighter counts as an initiator level for any maneuver using class, including fighters who use bonus feats to take maneuvers and stances.

The change to skills isn't a lot but should make for a more rounded character. The other three should let them really stay relevant.

Can anyone see anything majorly overpowering about these changes?

For the fighter and fighter only I would allow that weapon focus and weapons specializations could be taken multiple times for the same weapon. I know there already are "greater" version of both which comes online at level 8 and 12 respectively, but I would allow the fighter to have 10 WS with longsword. That would give him a chance to be the dominant melee DPS and reach a nice high attack bonus. Or even better allow multiple Weapon Mastery feats with the same weapon.

Also perhaps make him proficient with exotic weapons as well, due to his intuition with arms in general?

[Keltest]

Something I have noticed that hasn't come up in this thread is equipment. (Edit: ok, I see one post right above mine) Casting back to old legends, legendary heroes almost always had equally legendary equipment with them. Perseus got a bunch of equipment from the gods to let him survive beheading Medusa. King Arthur and his knights had many different famous swords.

Now fighters do get a couple of feats they can invest in to make use of weapons slightly better than other people... and they suck. A level 20 fighter can hit more reliably and somewhat harder than another class of the same level could, but they don't fundamentally alter the way a fighter uses the weapon, or indeed even make it stand out from another fighter using the same weapon without the feats.

The solution in my mind here is to re-examine what the intent behind the weapon feats, and change them so that, if you picked them, you could use a longsword and do better than if were to then pick up a greatsword, or any other weapon.

[Morphic tide]

Something I have noticed that hasn't come up in this thread is equipment. (Edit: ok, I see one post right above mine) Casting back to old legends, legendary heroes almost always had equally legendary equipment with them. Perseus got a bunch of equipment from the gods to let him survive beheading Medusa. King Arthur and his knights had many different famous swords.

Now fighters do get a couple of feats they can invest in to make use of weapons slightly better than other people... and they suck. A level 20 fighter can hit more reliably and somewhat harder than another class of the same level could, but they don't fundamentally alter the way a fighter uses the weapon, or indeed even make it stand out from another fighter using the same weapon without the feats.

The solution in my mind here is to re-examine what the intent behind the weapon feats, and change them so that, if you picked them, you could use a longsword and do better than if were to then pick up a greatsword, or any other weapon.

Lightning Mace, Boomerang Daze and such are a good place to start with such feats. Actually making the weapons have blatantly supernatural effects is right out for Fighters, but replicating some of the more basic magic item effects, or ones that make sense as (Ex) abilities, like Wounding, Fast, Defending and, at near-Epic, Vorpal, would make Fighter considerably more effective. Scaling versions of some of the existing weapon specialization feats, as in the general category of Weapon Focus, would help with feat starvation. Some sort of setup like having certain feats only when wielding specific weapons, preferably more than one feat or feats considerably out of the way, would help with that.

Similarly, scaling feats in general help a lot, I can see something like Toughness being a scaling repurchaseable feat. +1 per HD on the first purchase, +3 on the second, +6 per HD on the third and so on. A simple 1/3 BAB to AC when fighting defensively (Basically Defending on most classes) makes the Wizard's AC boosting a bit less severe.

[John Longarrow]

OK, equipment... This may be an area that can really help with out of combat options. Or more specifically there are a few things that a fighter SHOULD be really good at that are not normally outlined.

1) Fighters can appraise armor/weapons. They use their level in fighter as ranks in appraise when determining what a weapon or armors true value is.
2) At 4th level fighters can figure out the magical properties on weapons/armor. 8 hours uninterrupted practicing with a weapon or armor lets the fighter know the properties as if they had cast the identify spell.
3) Fighters can assess an opponent (sense motive, page 68 of Rules Compendium) either based on their sense motive or on their fighter level +5, which ever is better. Hey, fighters SHOULD be really good at sizing up an opponent.
4) Fighters get a bonus against fear effects equal to half their fighter level round down. They are trained to retain their discipline even when terrified.

[Ludic]

4) Fighters get a bonus against fear effects equal to half their fighter level round down. They are trained to retain their discipline even when terrified.

I really like this, but how does that interact with the bonuses you can get from other classes. Is it a morale bonus like the Paladin Aura of Courage? Or is it an untyped bonus like from Bolstering Voice stance?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Actually making the weapons have blatantly supernatural effects is right out for FightersWhy? Go look into both Japanese and Celtic lore. Both have warriors doing things that break physics constantly, and those are just two out of thousands of cultures whose legendary mythological heroes regularly do things that aren't spellcasting, but they're still highly magical.

There's honestly no reason why fighters shouldn't be breaking reality at higher levels along with everyone else; there's simply no way for the class to function, otherwise.

[Ludic]

Why? Go look into both Japanese and Celtic lore. Both have warriors doing things that break physics constantly, and those are just two out of thousands of cultures whose legendary mythological heroes regularly do things that aren't spellcasting, but they're still highly magical.

There's honestly no reason why fighters shouldn't be breaking reality at higher levels along with everyone else; there's simply no way for the class to function, otherwise.

It was also built into the Samurai in 3.0 in Oriental Adventures. The 3.5 Kensei improved on that feature. To be fair as well, building in the Kensei table to the fighter isn't a bad choice. Since they typically get stuck in one style of fighting. And it removes some of the burden of being super specialized in a fullblade by being able to change your enchantments on the fly. Instead of that shocking enchantment being invalidated because the DM tosses demon with the Tanar'ri subtype at you. When the cleric says 'well crap, that thing has a resistance to cold, fire and acid, and it's immune to electricity and poison', instead of saying, 'great my weapon is totally useless' you say 'Well, alrighty then, time for Mr. Wiggles (Because what fighter doesn't name their sword) to be Evil Outsiderbane, Magebane, Transmuting and +(N) instead of Shocking, Chilling and Constructbane and +(N)."

[Morphic tide]

Why? Go look into both Japanese and Celtic lore. Both have warriors doing things that break physics constantly, and those are just two out of thousands of cultures whose legendary mythological heroes regularly do things that aren't spellcasting, but they're still highly magical.

There's honestly no reason why fighters shouldn't be breaking reality at higher levels along with everyone else; there's simply no way for the class to function, otherwise.

When I say blatantly supernatural, I'm talking about straight-up-teleporting, having your weapon on-bloody-fire,(Perhaps the fire is bloody somehow, or the weapon is covered in flaming blood) doing stuff that is generally beyond existing high-level mundane nonsense.

Basically, if a Solar Exalt does it in their Melee charmset without getting the golden glowing hax in, it's worth thinking about for Fighter. That's why I mentioned stuff like copying the less magical Magic Item Enhancements, like Wounding and Defending.

Fighters are not supposed to be magical. This should be kept.

[AuraTwilight]

Why not? There's plenty of Fighter-y heroes in fiction and myth who had magical weapons to the point that the game expects it of you, might as well make them a class feature.

[Doctor Despair]

Something I've always liked the idea of is some (Ex.) ability to reflect magic developed by classes with high BAB but no ability to cast spells outside UMD WBL-mancy, however you would restrict that. Something like...

A character with 15 BAB and no ability to cast spells may make an attack roll (as if it were an AoO) whenever a spell targets a square she threatens, affects a square she threatens, or whose line of effect passes through a square she threatens. This attack roll precedes the effect of the spell as with contingent magic. The caster makes a caster level check against the mundane's attack roll. If the mundane ties or wins the check, the spell is countered and negated; the spell slot is still consumed.

I know there are lots of tricks to boost your caster level, but I feel like that would make mundanes a little more relevant without making them feel like casters. For more utility, maybe add something similar to the Witch Slayer ability:

A character with 15 BAB and no ability to cast spells may move up to their movement speed and make an attack roll. This movement and attack does not trigger any contingent magic. If the attack roll hits, any spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural effects effecting the target are removed and negated as in a disjunction. The target may attempt a will saving throw (DC = Mundane's BAB + 1 for each 50 damage dealt) to resist this effect. If the target is an object, it uses its creator's will save; if the effects on an object had multiple creators, use the best will save.

I'd assume the numbers are wrong, but conceptually I feel like that would help mundanes in combat situations as well as some puzzle-esque situations. Could also offer some utility for removing debuffs from party members.

[Morphic tide]

Why not? There's plenty of Fighter-y heroes in fiction and myth who had magical weapons to the point that the game expects it of you, might as well make them a class feature.

Because then you are no longer a Fighter, but a crappy melee Artificer. Leave the magic items out of class, have that stuff be an option for non-caster crafting to give the Fighter the ability to make their magic items. Or just make a variation of Heirloom weapon or Item Familiar (if I got that right..) which has similar properties to the Kensai feature. Keep the flatly magical stuff out of the main class and have it be out-of-class options.

[Ludic]

Something I've always liked the idea of is some (Ex.) ability to reflect magic developed by classes with high BAB but no ability to cast spells outside UMD WBL-mancy, however you would restrict that. Something like...

A character with 15 BAB and no ability to cast spells may make an attack roll (as if it were an AoO) whenever a spell targets a square she threatens, affects a square she threatens, or whose line of effect passes through a square she threatens. This attack roll precedes the effect of the spell as with contingent magic. The caster makes a caster level check against the mundane's attack roll. If the mundane ties or wins the check, the spell is countered and negated; the spell slot is still consumed.

I know there are lots of tricks to boost your caster level, but I feel like that would make mundanes a little more relevant without making them feel like casters. For more utility, maybe add something similar to the Witch Slayer ability:

A character with 15 BAB and no ability to cast spells may move up to their movement speed and make an attack roll. This movement and attack does not trigger any contingent magic. If the attack roll hits, any spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural effects effecting the target are removed and negated as in a disjunction. The target may attempt a will saving throw (DC = Mundane's BAB + 1 for each 50 damage dealt) to resist this effect. If the target is an object, it uses its creator's will save; if the effects on an object had multiple creators, use the best will save.

I'd assume the numbers are wrong, but conceptually I feel like that would help mundanes in combat situations as well as some puzzle-esque situations. Could also offer some utility for removing debuffs from party members.

Hit up complete warrior. Occult Slayer has it, if you're going to go that route, why reinvent the wheel when all you need to do is change the tire.

[Doctor Despair]

Hit up complete warrior. Occult Slayer has it, if you're going to go that route, why reinvent the wheel when all you need to do is change the tire.

I mean, the ability I described is a bit stronger than Spellturning twice a day. :p Although now that you mention it, it might make sense to tag the first ability onto Occult Slayer at 5 and the second onto Witch Slayer at 5 thematically.

[Ludic]

I mean, the ability I described is a bit stronger than Spellturning twice a day. :p Although now that you mention it, it might make sense to tag the first ability onto Occult Slayer at 5 and the second onto Witch Slayer at 5 thematically.

I was just referring to using it as a base starting point instead of building from scratch. Since the concept is already functional in a PrC.

[John Longarrow]

I really like this, but how does that interact with the bonuses you can get from other classes. Is it a morale bonus like the Paladin Aura of Courage? Or is it an untyped bonus like from Bolstering Voice stance?

Not that its asked... I'd have to say if its based off of being competent as a fighter, competency bonus would be the type. :D

[Arbane]

Because then you are no longer a Fighter, but a crappy melee Artificer. Leave the magic items out of class, have that stuff be an option for non-caster crafting to give the Fighter the ability to make their magic items. Or just make a variation of Heirloom weapon or Item Familiar (if I got that right..) which has similar properties to the Kensai feature. Keep the flatly magical stuff out of the main class and have it be out-of-class options.

And this is why Fighters can't Have Nice Things - because all the Nice Things are magic, and Fighter's Aren't Magic. Because the current ability of a high-level Fighter to kill a Tyrannosaur with a dagger in single combat is totally realistic.

[Morphic tide]

And this is why Fighters can't Have Nice Things - because all the Nice Things are magic, and Fighter's Aren't Magic. Because the current ability of a high-level Fighter to kill a Tyrannosaur with a dagger in single combat is totally realistic.

Hey, I mentioned Glorious Solar Bull**** as largely acceptable for Fighters. It's blatant magic I'm not okay with. Blatantly impossible skill at fighting is fine, including removing the need for many magical effects. Stuff like Flight and elemental attacks are a no, having increasingly physics warping stuff related to actual fighting is a yes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Hey, I mentioned Glorious Solar Bull**** as largely acceptable for Fighters. It's blatant magic I'm not okay with. Blatantly impossible skill at fighting is fine, including removing the need for many magical effects. Stuff like Flight and elemental attacks are a no, having increasingly physics warping stuff related to actual fighting is a yes.Ki isn't magic, but it's still (Su), it's all over Eastern mythology, and it can do all those things you mentioned. And most of all, it ain't spellcasting, and it's something fighters should have native access to at later levels.

[OldTrees1]

Hey, I mentioned Glorious Solar Bull**** as largely acceptable for Fighters. It's blatant magic I'm not okay with. Blatantly impossible skill at fighting is fine, including removing the need for many magical effects. Stuff like Flight and elemental attacks are a no, having increasingly physics warping stuff related to actual fighting is a yes.

Define high level out of combat abilities under this paradigm.

Define high level mobility abilities under this paradigm.

[Lans]

And this is why Fighters can't Have Nice Things - because all the Nice Things are magic, and Fighter's Aren't Magic. Because the current ability of a high-level Fighter to kill a Tyrannosaur with a dagger in single combat is totally realistic.

You can still have some nice things, look at warblade and crusader, or the barbarian. I think he would like for the actual magic to come from actual magic items. Maybe just a wealth boost at a few levels, in the form of a battle scrounge ability. People have been talking about giving him a keep at 10th level, so that would be in line with that.

I think giving the fighter a boost in numbers for combat and skills will go a long way to making him more in line with most classes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I think giving the fighter a boost in numbers for combat and skills will go a long way to making him more in line with most classes.Skills, yes. Numbers, no. Fighters already get plenty of numbers. Unfortunately, all they can do with them whack you over the head with them, and therein lies the problem.

[Arbane]

I think giving the fighter a boost in numbers for combat and skills will go a long way to making him more in line with most classes.

I don't think doing damage is the Fighter's problem - it's dealing with everything else, from flying enemies to mystery scenarios. All of which can be trivialized with the right spell.

[Lans]

Skills, yes. Numbers, no. Fighters already get plenty of numbers. Unfortunately, all they can do with them whack you over the head with them, and therein lies the problem.


I don't think doing damage is the Fighter's problem - it's dealing with everything else, from flying enemies to mystery scenarios. All of which can be trivialized with the right spell.

I was referring to more than just whacking somebody up the head with a hammer when I said combat. Fighters as is tend to be pigoned holed into one combat style and needs better numbers in the other styles, needs save increases, and higher ac . You don't need to fly if you can shoot a bow good enough. Even when it comes to the one fighting style they choose the numbers get a little dicey at some levels, like at level 7 vs a hill giant or earth elemental. They fighter can be built to beat these but it requires a bit of op

[Morphic tide]

Define high level out of combat abilities under this paradigm.

Define high level mobility abilities under this paradigm.

You want the Fighter to be great at stuff that isn't Fighting? Make a different class altogether for it. The Fighter is intended to be the greatest combat monster in the long term, after the Barbarian runs out of Rage, after the Monk runs out of Ki, after the casters run out of Magic, perhaps before those. Anything else can be made into feats on the side for the Fighter to grab so as to substitute their fighting abilities for non-fighting stuff. Fighters fight. That is the only thing they should do, and they should be so damn good at it that they can keep up with the full casters in combat. Fighters do not do out of combat stuff, it's not what they are. Making them good at out of combat stuff is ignoring the point of Fighters.

Mobility options? Well, Spring Attack on crack comes to mind, as does near-arbitrary Charge distances. Again, Fighter only does Fighting. That is what they are. That is all they are, and all they really should be, because they are Fighters. So any mobility options should be removing the importance of other mobility options that would otherwise counter the Fighter and make them go for multikills by basically outdoing the Monk at jumping between enemies.

[Pugwampy]

I have yet to feel useless or inadequate playing a fighter type class .....

You have 1000 plus classes to choose all basically a different version of 4 core types . wizard , cleric , rogue and fighter .

Fighter has most HP , AC and Damage . His job is to stand infront while everyone hides behind him . He does his job very well .

Why do you Chess GrandMasters want to make a mathematic mountain out of this game meant for 12 year olds ?
All your arguments for divine and arcane casters deal with late game high level . They are not relevant or very helpful in the early game and low levels .

[OldTrees1]

You want the Fighter to be great at stuff that isn't Fighting? Make a different class altogether for it. The Fighter is intended to be the greatest combat monster in the long term, after the Barbarian runs out of Rage, after the Monk runs out of Ki, after the casters run out of Magic, perhaps before those. Anything else can be made into feats on the side for the Fighter to grab so as to substitute their fighting abilities for non-fighting stuff. Fighters fight. That is the only thing they should do, and they should be so damn good at it that they can keep up with the full casters in combat. Fighters do not do out of combat stuff, it's not what they are. Making them good at out of combat stuff is ignoring the point of Fighters.

Mobility options? Well, Spring Attack on crack comes to mind, as does near-arbitrary Charge distances. Again, Fighter only does Fighting. That is what they are. That is all they are, and all they really should be, because they are Fighters. So any mobility options should be removing the importance of other mobility options that would otherwise counter the Fighter and make them go for multikills by basically outdoing the Monk at jumping between enemies.

So under your paradigm the Fighter player should tune out when out of combat & high level Fighters lack the mobility abilities necessary for high level combat (A planeshifting dragon requires more than mere charges to reach).

Fine, you can go and make your fighter. I care about Fighters being Tier 3 even at high level and that requires at minimum both the ability to participate in high level out of combat encounters and the ability to reach the enemies they are meant to slay in combat. Afterall, Fighters are good at Fighting and so they need to be good enough at the rest so that they can still reach the Fighting.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Combat is about WAAAAY more than just whacking things with a sharp thing.

What about war? Tactics? Strategy? Knowledge of magic and how to deal with it, and counteract it being used against you, and use those who can use it for your own purposes? How to conduct sieges? Setting up war camps? Organizing supply lines? Ambushing the opposite side? Knowing enemy weaknesses? Maneuverability before and during a fight? Convincing the commonfolk to conscript into an army? Leading men? Knowing how to pinpoint weaknesses, both in your side and your enemies'?

The fighter class can do NONE of these things.

But wizard can. Wizard is a better warrior class than fighter is, because fighter is a friggin' NPC class.

[Hal0Badger]

The fighter class can do NONE of these things.

But wizard can. Wizard is a better warrior class than fighter is, because fighter is a friggin' NPC class.

Wizard can do anything anyway?

The fighter sucks problem is related to not just fighter, but powerful abilities of broad range of T1 as well, which can fill almost any role, well within TO of course. But that's almost entire another discussion.

The main problem with the fighter is not the lack of out-of-combat, because that's not the premise of fighter. Main problem with that is, fighter cannot full-fill his proposed role (being the superior mundane fighting class) and seen as more likely a dip class.

Fighter class, as it is presented, intended to use Feat subsystem. Problem with that is, feat system has many traps, lacks in several areas (no sword&shield, no spear specialized fighting, TWF boggled with feat chains and dex requirements) and unlike spellcasting, you need to plan your feat selection, since majority of the good feats requires other feats first aside from other preq., where as when a wizard/sorcerer hits level 7-8, he can pick any almost any available spell from level 4 list.

That being said, without writing extra feats, fixing trap ones, best you can do is giving fighters some class features. But I would simply write good feats for martial characters, and bump fighter at some dead levels with good abilities which gets out of them tight situations (ability re-roll save for example, or rolling twice taking the better result). This is however, how I resolve in my tables. In other tables, where power level differs, better solution might be saying no to class, or maybe gestalting it with another class like duskblade or warblade.

[Morphic tide]

So under your paradigm the Fighter player should tune out when out of combat & high level Fighters lack the mobility abilities necessary for high level combat (A planeshifting dragon requires more than mere charges to reach).

Fine, you can go and make your fighter. I care about Fighters being Tier 3 even at high level and that requires at minimum both the ability to participate in high level out of combat encounters and the ability to reach the enemies they are meant to slay in combat. Afterall, Fighters are good at Fighting and so they need to be good enough at the rest so that they can still reach the Fighting.

That's what Feats are for. The 3.5 Fighter gets quite a few that could be spared if you give scaling versions of some of the lengthy feat chains. Perhaps have them worded as infinitely repurchasable with free repurchases for Fighters for the scaling, or scale more slowly for non-Fighters than they scale for Fighters with repurchases making up for it. Then make it possible to buy meaningful out of combat ability if you have enough feats to spare. Preferably by having them tie into combat abilities. I'm fine with having options for the Fighter to trade combat ability for non-combat ability, but the Fighter should, internally, be All Combat, All the Time. AFCs, feats, variant classes and so on to allow the Fighter to lower their massive combat ability for added versatility is fine, especially if you make there be more combat ability to trade.

For an example of how to free up feats for Fighters by making them scale:


Weapon Superiority [General]
Requirements: Weapon Specialization
Benefit: Choose a weapon you have chosen for Weapon Specialization. You gain a bonus to to-hit and damage equal to 1/2 your Fighter level with attacks made with that weapon.
Special: When the bonus of this feat increases to +4, you qualify as having Greater Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon for feat prerequisites and when the bonus reaches +6 you qualify as having Greater Weapon Specialization for feat prerequisites. This feat may be purchased multiple times, but you must choose a different weapon each time. A fighter may select Weapon Superiority as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Bam. Now you have Fighter feat saving on already Fighter exclusive feats. I am tired, and this is probably full of problems beyond the obvious feat prerequisite issue I clumsily patched up, but it's an example. That trims two feats and is a significant buff to to-hit that non-Fighter dips reduce, and can be quickly changed to trim another feat (Weapon Specialization, by making this replace Weapon Focus). Feats to spend on more varied combat things, or to get the same stuff without dipping into as many non-bonus feats. At it's core, Fighter should always be focused on Fighting. Stuff that directly relates is okay, but the base class should always focus on massive personal combat skills. Other combat things can be relegated to AFCs and Fighter feats and variant classes. Give more combat stuff for Fighter to trade off, and they can get more non-combat stuff by trading off potential combat stuff.

AC? Armor focus tree or feat thing. And shields. And a Parry tree or feat. That's Armor, Shield and Deflection AC bonuses to make bigger than normal sorts.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Wizard can do anything anyway?It's not that the wizard can do it, too; it's that the fighter can't do it at all -- at least not using their class abilities. And this is elementary stuff that fighters should be trained in, but instead, it's a gaping hole in a protagonist warrior's repertoire.

As a parallel, sure, wizard can do party-face stuff to a degree, but they're not that great at it; meanwhile, bards rock that stuff so hard that you'll basically prefer a bard every time over wizard when one is available, even though bards are "only" tier 3. After all, bards don't have to expend daily resources to do it, and they're far better at it, by default.

[Hal0Badger]

It's not that the wizard can do it, too; it's that the fighter can't do it at all -- at least not using their class abilities. And this is elementary stuff that fighters should be trained in, but instead, it's a gaping hole in a protagonist warrior's repertoire.

As a parallel, sure, wizard can do party-face stuff to a degree, but they're not that great at it; meanwhile, bards rock that stuff so hard that you'll basically prefer a bard every time over wizard when one is available, even though bards are "only" tier 3. After all, bards don't have to expend daily resources to do it, and they're far better at it, by default.

Well I give you that. But half of the things you listed, is not the premise of fighter. Half of them is about being a warlord, commending armies, which I do not think exclusively should come from fighter. Commanding a small group/making others better, well that's something like a marshal (which also needs some buffs).

But I would agree that fighter is lacking his niche. He can do it (contributing martial combat), but not as the pinnacle of that aspect and can easily be overshadowed by other classes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Well I give you that. But half of the things you listed, is not the premise of fighter. Half of them is about being a warlord, commending armies, which I do not think exclusively should come from fighter. Commanding a small group/making others better, well that's something like a marshal (which also needs some buffs).

But I would agree that fighter is lacking his niche. He can do it (contributing martial combat), but not as the pinnacle of that aspect and can easily be overshadowed by other classes.If you're giving a fighter stuff to do outside of battle and insist that it must be exclusively appropriate to one who focuses entirely on fighting, then you're going to have to give it skills which are pertinent to diplomacy, tactics, strategy, information gathering, history, battles, wars, and all the circumferential minutia (yeah, I said it) orbiting them.

With a broad enough repertoire of abilities that revolve around instigating and preventing violence, a "fighter" could be useful in just about any situation you could think of, not just when it comes to comparing AB to AC.

The player can choose to play such a character in a way that focuses more on hitting stuff, but at least give him access to the tools to be more of a competent warlord-type who can use his broad skillset outside of bashing skulls, if he wants.

[Lans]

I think we all have different ideas of what we want fighters to be, maybe we can find where we overlap and make options to include what other people find outside of the perview of what they want the fighter to be

[Morphic tide]

Let me do a quick list of what I can remember in the thread immediately:

Make the Fighter lead armies. I don't like this one, because it goes against being a Fighter. A variant class, feat set or variant class that focuses on it seems good to me, but the base class should be personal power as the class itself.

Multiple feat sets. Kinda a game-y solution to combat flexibility options, and it does nothing to solve the out of combat problem.

Feats to give Fighters access to (Ex) versions of a bunch of Magic Weapon Enhancements, like Wounding and Defending. Good framework, but works best as Weapon Focus tied, because of class feature definition issues.

More skills. Not much of a solution, doesn't really give them anything for out-of-combat that Bards don't even need class feature use to do better in.

Give some lower tier class features, like the Kensai weapon thing or some Samurai things. The Martial class features are okay as options, but only direct fighting power should get class feature status. Magic, I don't like. Most of the wanted magic things have near-equivalents in Feat form anyway, why not make them into one or two feats to grab so all the Martial classes can enjoy? Fighter still has more feats to spare on it anyway.

Feats to make currently invalid combat methods work. I like it, I actually have had some ideas on it and there are some rather simple fixes. I've seen some things that make great bonuses to combat styles like TWF. One of my own ideas was to make TWF give multiplicative attacks. Thinking back, I think a BAB penalty to mitigate works best for that, because you are getting full attacks off both weapons, with the penalty removing iteratives that would go negative. Prevents massive attack spamming, which saves a lot of dice rolling. Of course, stuff based on Pommelling Style from PF can be made to reduce dice rolls in place of that potential damage reduction.

Feats to simply buy power in needed things. Personally, I like this best. It makes it so that a build that flatly needs something outside their class can grab it, and Fighter can always have changes to get all the strictly needed combat feats without needing to dip into the non-bonus feats. Fits the theme of Fighters trading their class-focused combat skills for extensions that aren't personal skill in combat I want so much.

Consolidate feats. Basically, replace the various feat chains with better, scaling versions to massively reduce the feat taxes. Works out well, overall, because it gets rid of a lot of issues for quite a few classes. And you can keep it away from the non-Martial classes by tying it all to Martial class things. I prefer BAB or class level, so that only somewhat focused Martial classes can properly use them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Let me do a quick list of what I can remember in the thread immediately:

Make the Fighter lead armies.Wrong. Allow the fighter to lead armies. Significant difference. The player doesn't want to lead armies or focus on Diplomacy to strike accords with the enemy force? He'll at least still have access to stuff like Sense Motive and Bluff, both of which are quite useful in and outside of a fight.


More skills. Not much of a solution, doesn't really give them anything for out-of-combat that Bards don't even need class feature use to do better in.Definitely not all that it needs, but as is, the fighter is a complete joke. So the fighter can hit stuff over the head. The party's illiterate barbarian can do the same thing, and he is better educated than the fighter is.

[Lans]

What about war? Tactics? Strategy? Knowledge of magic and how to deal with it, and counteract it being used against you, and use those who can use it for your own purposes? How to conduct sieges? Setting up war camps? Organizing supply lines? Ambushing the opposite side? Knowing enemy weaknesses? Maneuverability before and during a fight? Convincing the commonfolk to conscript into an army? Leading men? Knowing how to pinpoint weaknesses, both in your side and your enemies'?

The fighter class can do NONE of these things.
.

Well-
Martial study a white raven or devoted spirit power for diplomacy or intimidate should cover these to a degree ,Convincing the commonfolk to conscript into an army? Leading men? Setting up war camps? Organizing supply lines?
Martial study for a shadow hand power can cover -Ambushing the opposite side?

Shadow, and a few others can do -Maneuverability before and during a fight

Iron heart maneuvers can do- counteract [magic] being used against you,

[Ludic]

Snip.

You missed incorporate meaningless combat feats into the class. For instance Feint is something a fighter should know, so why spend a feat on Improved Feint, just make it a class feature, other classes get it on the same grounds, It's something that class should just know.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Well-
Martial study a white raven or devoted spirit power for diplomacy or intimidate should cover these to a degree ,Convincing the commonfolk to conscript into an army? Leading men? Setting up war camps? Organizing supply lines?
Martial study for a shadow hand power can cover -Ambushing the opposite side?

Shadow, and a few others can do -Maneuverability before and during a fight

Iron heart maneuvers can do- counteract [magic] being used against you,And where are you getting all the skill points to invest in these skills? 13 Int is the highest any fighter will want (and then only because of stupid requirements on prereq feats). Fighters are very MAD, and more INT means less Str, Dex, Con, Wis (for Will/Spot/Listen) and Cha (for Intimidate, if you're going to make use of one of the fighter's only social and utility skills).

[Arbane]

You want the Fighter to be great at stuff that isn't Fighting? Make a different class altogether for it. The Fighter is intended to be the greatest combat monster in the long term, after the Barbarian runs out of Rage, after the Monk runs out of Ki, after the casters run out of Magic, perhaps before those.

(SNIP)
Again, Fighter only does Fighting. That is what they are. That is all they are, and all they really should be, because they are Fighters. So any mobility options should be removing the importance of other mobility options that would otherwise counter the Fighter and make them go for multikills by basically outdoing the Monk at jumping between enemies.

Sigh.

As it stands, a Fighter can't competently do more than one, possibly two of the following with their pathetic skill-points:

Climb a cliffside
Stand watch
Administer first-aid
Navigate the wilderness
Swim
Get through an obstacle course
Swing from a chandelier
Maintain, repair or build their own gear
Ride a horse
Take care of a horse
Guess how tough their opponent is
Know what they're fighting
Not fall for a feint
Know the battlefield's terrain
Guess the enemy's tactics
Lead troops
Know the city they LIVE IN
Know politics
Be GOOD at politics

I'd expect any competent warrior-type to be able to manage AT LEAST half of those.

The 'lol, Fightars r dum' meme is a pernicious one, and I want to see it killed. But Fighters are no good at killing memes, either. :smallannoyed:

[Ludic]

The 'lol, Fightars r dum' meme is a pernicious one, and I want to see it killed. But Fighters are no good at killing memes, either. :smallannoyed:

That would first require the fighter to be able to kill something.

[OldTrees1]

And where are you getting all the skill points to invest in these skills? 13 Int is the highest any fighter will want (and then only because of stupid requirements on prereq feats). Fighters are very MAD, and more INT means less Str, Dex, Con, Wis (for Will/Spot/Listen) and Cha (for Intimidate, if you're going to make use of one of the fighter's only social and utility skills).

Err, 14 Int is the highest a 3.5 point buy Fighter will want (because skill points are nice and 14 is the end of the 1:1 point buy).*


Your point is still valid. 2+2(14Int) is not much. Even Thugs(which lose a bonus feat) only get 4+2(14 Int).




*14 Int has been field tested & found desirable. There was no Int prerequisite involved.

[Milo v3]

Sigh.

As it stands, a Fighter can't competently do more than one, possibly two of the following with their pathetic skill-points:

Climb a cliffside
Stand watch
Administer first-aid
Navigate the wilderness
Swim
Get through an obstacle course
Swing from a chandelier
Maintain, repair or build their own gear
Ride a horse
Take care of a horse
Guess how tough their opponent is
Know what they're fighting
Not fall for a feint
Know the battlefield's terrain
Guess the enemy's tactics
Lead troops
Know the city they LIVE IN
Know politics
Be GOOD at politics

I'd expect any competent warrior-type to be able to manage AT LEAST half of those.

The 'lol, Fightars r dum' meme is a pernicious one, and I want to see it killed. But Fighters are no good at killing memes, either. :smallannoyed:

Hmm.... I'm tempted to actually check how many of those a single fighter using my fix can cover. What level do you expect that stuff to all be done?

[OldTrees1]

Hmm.... I'm tempted to actually check how many of those a single fighter using my fix can cover. What level do you expect that stuff to all be done?

The hardest non scaling things on that list would be:
Capable of fighting while scaling a smooth canyon cliff face* (feels 9th ish)
Lead Troops (feels 6th ish)
Be GOOD at politics (feels 9th ish)
*Climb a cliff was ambiguous and different levels would have different difficulties expected.

So I would guess 9th level as a good rough estimate of a place to try it from. I would also recommend a 1st and 5th level snapshots since many of those accomplishments feel like they are either 1st or low level.

[Anthrowhale]

No one enjoys having toys taken away, but nerfing a wizard to make fighter relevant can be effective. Consider this:


A spellcaster and monsters with spell-like abilities have a spell resistance of 15+caster level. Unlike other forms of spell resistance, caster resistance may not be voluntarily lowered. All spells from a caster are subject to that caster's resistance, even those which are otherwise not subject to spell resistance.

This would dramatically alter the game in favor of fighters because a high level fighter, with his magical equipment and feat repertoire, becomes a relatively good buffing platform. Spellcasters could no longer be effective as fighters, since self-buffing strategies waste most spells and have high uncertainty in effect. Furthermore, although spellcasters can be magically healed, it is a more difficult process. In partial compensation, spellcasters at least resist enemy spells well. A spellcaster summoning monsters remains a powerful strategy, but since only non-SLA monsters can be easily buffed, summoned monsters generally cannot fight better than an appropriately leveled and outfitted fighter. Spellcasters have less ability to affect monsters at higher levels, because all of the SLA using ones have a high spell resistance. Mailman-style strategies at least remain effective with SR:No spells.

The above pushes towards a much more cooperative form of play where every party needs both spell sources and spell sinks to be fully effective. Obviously, it makes challenges more difficult, but not so difficult that level appropriate parties cannot deal with it.

[Morphic tide]

Sigh.

As it stands, a Fighter can't competently do more than one, possibly two of the following with their pathetic skill-points:

Climb a cliffside
Stand watch
Administer first-aid
Navigate the wilderness
Swim
Get through an obstacle course
Swing from a chandelier
Maintain, repair or build their own gear
Ride a horse
Take care of a horse
Guess how tough their opponent is
Know what they're fighting
Not fall for a feint
Know the battlefield's terrain
Guess the enemy's tactics
Lead troops
Know the city they LIVE IN
Know politics
Be GOOD at politics

I'd expect any competent warrior-type to be able to manage AT LEAST half of those.

The 'lol, Fightars r dum' meme is a pernicious one, and I want to see it killed. But Fighters are no good at killing memes, either. :smallannoyed:

I'm fine with options for the combat-related and basic-athetics stuff in there all being doable with the base Fighter overhaul version. My thinking is that the base Fighter should only do one thing by default: Fight. Anything else is opt-in, sacrificing insane personal combat power bit by bit to do so. The less connected to fighting something is, the more I want to see it as a general feat instead of a Fighter feat. Having a sizeable selection of Fighter feats for the army directing and countering stuff, feats to let any class meeting the requirements do politics stuff and ways to be competent at those things that aren't combat related under some variety of flexible skill system where the character has class skills separate from their classes specifically to deal with the issues of cross-skill ranks are all things I can accept. Yes, Fighters need more skill points, but only enough to cover all the direct combat use and travel skills. You can swap some things for other things, of course, but the design intent I want is to have enough skill points to fill in all the combat stuff, which can be traded off for non-combat stuff.

Also, you seem to mistake being a Fighter for being a general of an army. That is not the case, and should not be the case with the base class of Fighter. What you describe is much more Marshal than Fighter, because Marshals are built to be leading military groups. Fighters should trade off astronomical combat power when they are hitting for the non-personal fighting power. Being a warrior needs far, far fewer of those than half. A warrior is not necessarily a trained soldier or anything like a general. They can just be amazing at Fighting alone, no backup, no politics, just fighting on their own with little to no ability at anything else.

[Milo v3]

The hardest non scaling things on that list would be:
Capable of fighting while scaling a smooth canyon cliff face* (feels 9th ish)
Lead Troops (feels 6th ish)
Be GOOD at politics (feels 9th ish)
*Climb a cliff was ambiguous and different levels would have different difficulties expected.

So I would guess 9th level as a good rough estimate of a place to try it from. I would also recommend a 1st and 5th level snapshots since many of those accomplishments feel like they are either 1st or low level.
I'll do 1/5/10 rather than 1/5/9 just for numerical rhythem.


No one enjoys having toys taken away, but nerfing a wizard to make fighter relevant can be effective. Consider this:

This would dramatically alter the game in favor of fighters because a high level fighter, with his magical equipment and feat repertoire, becomes a relatively good buffing platform. Spellcasters could no longer be effective as fighters, since self-buffing strategies waste most spells and have high uncertainty in effect. Furthermore, although spellcasters can be magically healed, it is a more difficult process. In partial compensation, spellcasters at least resist enemy spells well. A spellcaster summoning monsters remains a powerful strategy, but since only non-SLA monsters can be easily buffed, summoned monsters generally cannot fight better than an appropriately leveled and outfitted fighter. Spellcasters have less ability to affect monsters at higher levels, because all of the SLA using ones have a high spell resistance. Mailman-style strategies at least remain effective with SR:No spells.

The above pushes towards a much more cooperative form of play where every party needs both spell sources and spell sinks to be fully effective. Obviously, it makes challenges more difficult, but not so difficult that level appropriate parties cannot deal with it.
That makes "Personal" spells useless. My preferred change to wizard is to stop their spell list at 6th level (they still have spell slots above 6 though), since it weakens wizards when they are at their strongest while not nerfing them in the parts of the game where they are "fine".


Also, you seem to mistake being a Fighter for being a general of an army. That is not the case, and should not be the case with the base class of Fighter. What you describe is much more Marshal than Fighter, because Marshals are built to be leading military groups. Fighters should trade off astronomical combat power when they are hitting for the non-personal fighting power. Being a warrior needs far, far fewer of those than half. A warrior is not necessarily a trained soldier or anything like a general. They can just be amazing at Fighting alone, no backup, no politics, just fighting on their own with little to no ability at anything else.
According to PHP and PF's core rule book, being an overlord or someone who rouses the hearts of armies are perfectly valid fighter concepts. Fighters are allowed to be more than just "Durrrr I can stab things".

[Morphic tide]

I'll do 1/5/10 rather than 1/5/9 just for numerical rhythem.


That makes "Personal" spells useless. My preferred change to wizard is to stop their spell list at 6th level (they still have spell slots above 6 though), since it weakens wizards when they are at their strongest while not nerfing them in the parts of the game where they are "fine".


According to PHP and PF's core rule book, being an overlord or someone who rouses the hearts of armies are perfectly valid fighter concepts. Fighters are allowed to be more than just "Durrrr I can stab things".

Allowed to I'm fine with, but that is under the condition that they are not part of core class features. Having support in the skill list, fine. Having bonus feats to help with it, allright. But nothing in the core class features that is not direct combat use. If it has a side use in those other things by design, okay. But it must assist in direct combat to be base class features. AFCs and Variant classes with support I'm also fine with, as long as the core, base Fighter has nothing that is entirely dead weight to a pure murder monster build. Nothing you can't simply not have in the base class that can't be used in direct damage dealing combat.

I'm fine with the option of an army leading Fighter build. I'm not fine with there being class features for that in the base class, no AFCs or feats involved.

[Milo v3]

Allowed to I'm fine with, but that is under the condition that they are not part of core class features. Having support in the skill list, fine. Having bonus feats to help with it, allright. But nothing in the core class features that is not direct combat use. If it has a side use in those other things by design, okay. But it must assist in direct combat to be base class features. AFCs and Variant classes with support I'm also fine with, as long as the core, base Fighter has nothing that is entirely dead weight to a pure murder monster build. Nothing you can't simply not have in the base class that can't be used in direct damage dealing combat.

I'm fine with the option of an army leading Fighter build. I'm not fine with there being class features for that in the base class, no AFCs or feats involved.
Then you are asking for a crappy fighter as the default fighter. Simple as that. (And to me your perspective of "Concepts described in the default fluff of the class shouldn't be able to be done without external stuff like variants" is rather strange. You shouldn't need to use variants to get the default fluff of the class).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Allowed to I'm fine with, but that is under the condition that they are not part of core class features. Having support in the skill list, fine. Having bonus feats to help with it, allright. But nothing in the core class features that is not direct combat use. If it has a side use in those other things by design, okay. But it must assist in direct combat to be base class features. AFCs and Variant classes with support I'm also fine with, as long as the core, base Fighter has nothing that is entirely dead weight to a pure murder monster build. Nothing you can't simply not have in the base class that can't be used in direct damage dealing combat.

I'm fine with the option of an army leading Fighter build. I'm not fine with there being class features for that in the base class, no AFCs or feats involved.You know all it would take to give players the option of a competent warlord-type as part of the base class's features without shoving it onto anyone who doesn't want it? A.) More skill points, the ability to choose your skill list like an expert, and vastly better Int synergy to reduce MAD for those who prefer high Int to high Str or Dex (perhaps even exclusionary between the three). B.) The war lored ability I outlined earlier (useful in granting info on all sorts of things regarding both large-scale wars and small-scale skirmishes). And C.) The option to take feats like Leadership (even a scaled-down version) and Landlord as fighter bonus feats. That's it. And all of that is just as fantastically useful on a mounted knight as it is on a samurai as it is on a swashbuckler as it is on a HULK SMASH! brute.

As it stands, they're basically seriously incompetent town guards that are half-blind and half-deaf, and that's all they're good for. [edit] Actually, they're not even good for that. About the only thing they're well-designed for is dominate fodder.

[John Longarrow]

To all who've participated, thank you. I think I've got enough ideas to work out a home brew version that I can use at my table. I am keeping two diametrically opposed concepts in mind though, Fighter needs to be viable as a straight 20 level build as well as making sense in multi-class builds. As such I'm aiming to have the class able to excel at what the player wants it to by level 10 at the latest.

[OldTrees1]

To all who've participated, thank you. I think I've got enough ideas to work out a home brew version that I can use at my table. I am keeping two diametrically opposed concepts in mind though, Fighter needs to be viable as a straight 20 level build as well as making sense in multi-class builds. As such I'm aiming to have the class able to excel at what the player wants it to by level 10 at the latest.

Nice. Will you share it here when you have a final draft?

[stanprollyright]

Also, you seem to mistake being a Fighter for being a general of an army. That is not the case, and should not be the case with the base class of Fighter. What you describe is much more Marshal than Fighter, because Marshals are built to be leading military groups. Fighters should trade off astronomical combat power when they are hitting for the non-personal fighting power. Being a warrior needs far, far fewer of those than half. A warrior is not necessarily a trained soldier or anything like a general. They can just be amazing at Fighting alone, no backup, no politics, just fighting on their own with little to no ability at anything else.

I have to disagree. Here's the fluff text for Fighter:

The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king’s champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king—all are fighters...Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers.

Just perusing that list, we've got several leader types: conquering overlord, bandit king, and even knights generally had their own private armies that they were expected to lead into battle. "Champion" implies some kind of inspirational figure rather than just someone of extreme violence; soldiers, mercenaries, and guards all belong to a military or paramilitary organization with rank based on merit. Good soldiers get promoted into commanders, good commanders get made into generals. It's a very natural, logical, and realistic transition for any militaristic character. The fact that there is no clean way to play that transition and have it reflected on your character sheet is a problem. Leading men into battle is not quite the same skill as fighting in it, but the two aren't uncorrelated. Focusing on one is (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCaptain) not (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourStarBadass) necessarily (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ColonelBadass) to the detriment of the other.

Now if Marshal were a Fighter PrC, in core, that would be one thing. But it's a weird base class from a weird book. If you're going to keep putting Fighter in the core rulebook of every edition and not Marshal, then the Fighter needs to at least have the option of doing this very basic and intuitive thing that you would expect a Fighter to do.

[Ivogel]

You can just give them every ACF that you can find for free at dead levels, normally you would have to turn in a feat.

So free dungeon crash, Thug acf, overpowering attack, resolute, counterattack, armor of god, and i might be missing a few more.

The fighter ACF are very powerful

I'm playing a two-handed fighter (lv 10 currently, no homebrew) and have no problem contributing to the party on the combat aspect. Out of combat just think outside of the box, you can do anything with being creative.

[Lans]

And where are you getting all the skill points to invest in these skills? 13 Int is the highest any fighter will want (and then only because of stupid requirements on prereq feats). Fighters are very MAD, and more INT means less Str, Dex, Con, Wis (for Will/Spot/Listen) and Cha (for Intimidate, if you're going to make use of one of the fighter's only social and utility skills).

I'm not saying they are good options for them, or that they can cover all of them at once, just that they have support for them in there class features.


Then you are asking for a crappy fighter as the default fighter. Simple as that. (And to me your perspective of "Concepts described in the default fluff of the class shouldn't be able to be done without external stuff like variants" is rather strange. You shouldn't need to use variants to get the default fluff of the class).

It doesn't have to be crappy, but for it to not be crappy its ability to fight has to come like 90% from the class its self. Like at 20th level its level up feats got spent on skill focus perform, and 700k of his wealth got spent opening up a museum and he can still go toe to toe with the Tarrasqe type of thing.

[Milo v3]

It doesn't have to be crappy, but for it to not be crappy its ability to fight has to come like 90% from the class its self. Like at 20th level its level up feats got spent on skill focus perform, and 700k of his wealth got spent opening up a museum and he can still go toe to toe with the Tarrasqe type of thing.
A class that only has options in combat is a class that can only interact with a tiny portion of play IMO. I see no reason some players should basically just leave the table just because there is no fight currently happening.

[Troacctid]

Combat isn't really a tiny portion of play. It's the biggest portion of all the portions.

[John Longarrow]

Combat isn't really a tiny portion of play. It's the biggest portion of all the portions.

Oddly this is very table dependent. Each DM runs their game a little differently and what works at one table may or may not work at another. Down side is everyone tends to see things from their own perspective to the point they dismiss other's.

One goal I have is to allow the same chassis that can create Conan to create Inego Montoya and Robin hood along with the Prince John.

[Flashy]

Oddly this is very table dependent. Each DM runs their game a little differently and what works at one table may or may not work at another. Down side is everyone tends to see things from their own perspective to the point they dismiss other's.

This is profoundly true. Honestly, for the majority of tables I've played at "combat centric" might as well read "literally unplayable." I know it can color the way I look at character options pretty severely.

[Hal0Badger]

Leading an army and being a martial combat master are 2 different things. I don't think it is a necessity for the tools that fighter should have access to. Neither social skills like bluff/diplomacy. I agree that fighter should be able judge his opponent, or do things like feint, but these abilities can easily be separated from social skills (bluff/sense motive).

Fighter chassis is a class that focuses solely on the martial combat mastery. If you want to tag other skills for your preference, well by all means do that. But the problem with fighter is not lacking these. It is the point he fails where he should excel , a.k.a. martial combat. He can do it, but as I said, he can easily be overshadowed by others. I consider it failure because the chassis forgoes almost any other ability to focus on that sole aspect, and that aspect is a large portion of the base game, especially for a design made for kick-the-door kinda approach.

As I said you might tag those abilities as a buff onto chassis if you like, though they are not a necessity for the martial-combat master.

[Keltest]

Oddly this is very table dependent. Each DM runs their game a little differently and what works at one table may or may not work at another. Down side is everyone tends to see things from their own perspective to the point they dismiss other's.

One goal I have is to allow the same chassis that can create Conan to create Inego Montoya and Robin hood along with the Prince John.

While this is true, I have to say, if you look at the minimal combat game and think "I need to be a fighter!" then you get what you deserve. More than any other class the fighter's job is apparent right in the class name.

[Cosi]

No one enjoys having toys taken away, but nerfing a wizard to make fighter relevant can be effective.

No, it can't. The Fighter doesn't (just) suck because the Wizard (actually, the Cleric) is better at his job. He sucks because he isn't good enough. It's like you need to be a seven and the Fighter is a two. Sure, maybe the Wizard is a ten, but making him a six would make the Fighter any less a two.


Spellcasters could no longer be effective as fighters, since self-buffing strategies waste most spells and have high uncertainty in effect.

No they don't. Gishes cast all their buffs at the beginning of the day. They can just wait till they roll well. Or instead of gishing they can summon a bunch of goons.


The above pushes towards a much more cooperative form of play where every party needs both spell sources and spell sinks to be fully effective. Obviously, it makes challenges more difficult, but not so difficult that level appropriate parties cannot deal with it.

Not really. You basically crippled the balanced Wizards (battlefield controllers) and did nothing to the broken Wizards (chain binders). Nerfing Wizard combat options is just putting up a giant sign point at planar binding.


I'm fine with options for the combat-related and basic-athetics stuff in there all being doable with the base Fighter overhaul version. My thinking is that the base Fighter should only do one thing by default: Fight. Anything else is opt-in, sacrificing insane personal combat power bit by bit to do so.

This is wrong. Forcing people to sacrifice power for flavor doesn't work. How many Acolytes of the Skin do you see? Not a whole lot, because no one is willing to give up five caster levels for some minor abilities. Similarly, no one is going to give up their Ultimate Fighting Power for the ability to lead armies. Also, the concept of one character being the best at "fighting" is bad for the game.


Combat isn't really a tiny portion of play. It's the biggest portion of all the portions.

It doesn't matter what portion of the game it is. If you balance the Fighter by making him so good at fighting it makes up for not doing anything else, that balance evaporates as soon as you try to play a game that has less (or more) combat in it. Every character needs an effective way to contribute in all the minigames.


Leading an army and being a martial combat master are 2 different things. I don't think it is a necessity for the tools that fighter should have access to. Neither social skills like bluff/diplomacy. I agree that fighter should be able judge his opponent, or do things like feint, but these abilities can easily be separated from social skills (bluff/sense motive).

Are people seriously arguing that they don't want the Fighter to have skills? That's insane. Experts have skills.


Fighter chassis is a class that focuses solely on the martial combat mastery. If you want to tag other skills for your preference, well by all means do that. But the problem with fighter is not lacking these. It is the point he fails where he should excel , a.k.a. martial combat.

No, the problem of the Fighter is that all he has is a verb: Fight. When the game calls for leading, or tracking, or discovering, or investigating, or exploring, or negotiating, he has nothing to do. That's bad, and if you can't figure out something for the Fighter to do in those situations, he should not exist.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Didn't you know, Cosi? Being incompetent is the fighter's schtick. They're all about feats, because feats are for combat, and despite all of the dozens of combat applications that skills have, skills are not feats, and therefore, skills are not for combat.

Or...something. I think?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I do kind of agree that the leader-of-men thing should be an option with the class (somehow), rather than the default. Not because it's not thematically fitting, but because it's not appropriate for every-- perhaps even most-- game, nor is it something that every player will want. Having an army instantly adds a huge amount of paperwork to your character, and instantly starts to warp the campaign around it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I do kind of agree that the leader-of-men thing should be an option with the class (somehow), rather than the default. Not because it's not thematically fitting, but because it's not appropriate for every-- perhaps even most-- game, nor is it something that every player will want. Having an army instantly adds a huge amount of paperwork to your character, and instantly starts to warp the campaign around it.Adding social skills to the skill list (along with more skill points for those and other important skills) and Leadership as a feat option would fix this just fine. Don't want to be a leader? Then don't take the options that make you a leader.

[Cosi]

Question: What famous characters do people think of as Fighters? Conan is a Barbarian, Han Solo is a Rogue, who's a Fighter?


I do kind of agree that the leader-of-men thing should be an option with the class (somehow), rather than the default. Not because it's not thematically fitting, but because it's not appropriate for every-- perhaps even most-- game, nor is it something that every player will want. Having an army instantly adds a huge amount of paperwork to your character, and instantly starts to warp the campaign around it.

Personally, I think the game should have a better developed set of mechanics for things like "leading armies" and "running kingdoms", because those things are a big part of the source material for D&D. Also, it's a good marker for high level characters.

That said, Max is right that you could just make it optional.

[Milo v3]

Sigh.

As it stands, a Fighter can't competently do more than one, possibly two of the following with their pathetic skill-points:

Climb a cliffside
Stand watch
Administer first-aid
Navigate the wilderness
Swim
Get through an obstacle course
Swing from a chandelier
Maintain, repair or build their own gear
Ride a horse
Take care of a horse
Guess how tough their opponent is
Know what they're fighting
Not fall for a feint
Know the battlefield's terrain
Guess the enemy's tactics
Lead troops
Know the city they LIVE IN
Know politics
Be GOOD at politics

I'd expect any competent warrior-type to be able to manage AT LEAST half of those.

While I do suck at optimization, I thought I should give a shot to seeing if my I can use the existing rules + my fighter fix to meet as many of those prerequisites as reasonable while making a character from level one up outside of picking equipment. The following character does have some severe weaknesses (like flying enemies.. though he can jump at ones within 30 ft without much difficultly), but I'm assuming this character to be part of a party. So I present Doalot (who uses Pathfinder rules including Background Skills and Combat Tactics, and my Fighter fix):

LG Human Fighter (General) 1
Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +1 Perception +5
AC 14, touch 11, flat-footed 13 (+1 dex, +3 armour)
hp 13 (1d10+3)
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +1
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Greatsword +4 (2d6+4)
Melee Combat Stamina Greatsword +5 to +7 (2d6+4)
Melee Power Attack Greatsword +3 (2d6+7)
Melee Combat Stamina Power Attack Greatsword +4 to +6 (2d6+7)
Str 17, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +1, CMB +4, CMD 15
Feats Combat Reflexes, Combat Stamina (3), Cunning, Power Attack
Traits Armor Expert, Civilized
Skills Acrobatics +5, Climb +7, Craft (Weapons) +5, Diplomacy +1 (Against people of the Grand Nation +3), Intimidate +1 (Against people of the Grand Nation +3), Knowledge (Local) +6 (Identify humanoids +8), Knowledge (Martial) +5, Knowledge (Nobility) +6, Perception +5, Profession (Soldier) +5, Ride +5, Sense Motive +2, Swim +7, Knowledge (Identify creatures with unlisted Knowledge check) +3
Languages Common, Elven
SQ Monster Hunter (bonus to identifying monsters equal to Con Mod [this is already included above] + can use such knowledge checks untrained), Soldier’s Past (Sentinel [No benefit till 3rd level] + Use class level as ranks for Knowledge [Martial] and Profession [Soldier])
Combat Gear Greatsword, Parade Armour Other Gear Backpack, Bedroll, Belt Pouch, Boardgame (6 gp), Flint and Steel, Iron Pot, Light Horse, Mess Kit, Riding Saddle, Rope, Sap, Soldier’s Uniform, Torches (10), Trail Rations (5 days), Waterskin.

LG Human Fighter (General) 5
Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +1 Perception +11
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+1 dex, +6 armour, +1 deflection)
hp 47 (5d10+15)
Fort +7, Ref +6, Will +3 (+4 against mind-affecting effects)
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 Greatsword +8 (2d6+8)
Melee Combat Stamina +1 Greatsword +9 to +12 (2d6+8)
Melee Power Attack +1 Greatsword +6 (2d6+14)
Melee Combat Stamina Power Attack +1 Greatsword +7 to +10 (2d6+14)
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +5, CMB +9 (+10 with Heavy Blades), CMD 20 (21 against Heavy Blades)
Feats Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training [Diplomacy/Ride]), Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Combat Stamina (7), Cunning, Improved Bravery, Inspiring Bravery, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Traits Armor Expert, Civilized
Skills Acrobatics +9, Climb +12, Craft (Armour) +9, Craft (Weapons) +9, Diplomacy +9 (Against military +11), Intimidate +1 (Against military +3), Knowledge (Local) +10 (Identifying humanoids +12), Knowledge (Martial) +9, Knowledge (Nobility) +9, Perception +11, Profession (Soldier) +9, Ride +9, Survival +9, Sense Motive +8, Swim +12, Knowledge (identifying creatures with an unlisted knowledge skill) +3
Languages Common, Elven
SQ

Adaptive Training (Faster retraining of bonus feats)
Armour Training 1 (reduce ACP & increase max dex, move at normal speed in medium armour)
Bravery (+1 on saves against mind-affecting effects & grants same benefit to allies within 30 ft.)
Combat Mobility (Can take ten-foot steps instead of five-foot steps)
Experienced Armourer (Military stuff worth 500 gp or less is bought at 90% of normal price)
Military Reputation (Gains a bonus equal to ½ class level on cha checks against creatures with at least one rank in Profession (Soldier) or an official rank in the military of a country)
Monster Hunter (bonus to identifying monsters equal to Con Mod [this is already included above] + can use such knowledge checks untrained)
Soldier’s Past (Sentinel [Alertness] + Use class level as ranks for Knowledge [Martial] and Profession [Soldier])
Weapon Training 1 (Heavy Blades)(Gains +1 to Attack & Damage rolls with Heavy Blades and with Combat Maneuvers involving those weapons)

Combat Gear +1 Greatsword, +1 Glamoured Kikko, Cloak of Resistance +1, Ring of Protection +1 Other Gear Board Game (10 gp), Boots of the Cat, Combat Trained Light Horse, Fighter’s Kit, Mwk Artisan’s Tools (Armour), Mwk Artisan’s Tools (Weapons), Soldier’s Outfit, 31 gp

LG Human Fighter (General) 10
Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +2 Perception +24
AC 23, touch 14, flat-footed 21 (+2 dex, +1 natural, +2 deflection, +8 armour)
Hp 89 (10d10+30)
Fort +12, Ref +12, Will +7 (+9 against sleep and charm effects)(+11 against mind-affecting effects)
Speed 40 ft., climb 10 ft (Climb DC 20 and lower surfaces only)
Melee +2 Adamantine Greatsword +20/+15 (2d6+11)
Melee Combat Stamina +2 Adamantine Greatsword +21 to +25/+16 to +20 (2d6+11)
Melee Power Attack +2 Adamantine Greatsword +17/+12 (2d6+20)
Melee Combat Stamina Power Attack +2 Adamantine Greatsword +18 to +22/+12 to +16 (2d6+20)
Str 21, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +10/+5, CMB +15, CMD 27
Feats Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training [Diplomacy/Ride]), Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Cut from the Air, Combat Stamina (12), Cunning, Difficult Swings, Improved Bravery, Inspiring Bravery, Measure Foe, Power Attack, Spellcut, Street Smarts, Uncanny Alertness, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Traits Armor Expert, Civilized
Skills Acrobatics 15 (+24 for jumping), Bluff +14 (Against military +19), Climb +18, Craft (Armour) +9, Craft (Weapons) +9, Diplomacy +14 (Against military +19), Heal +11, Intimidate +14, Knowledge (Local) +19 (identifying humanoids +21), Knowledge (Martial) +14, Knowledge (Nobility) +15, Perception +24, Profession (Soldier) +14, Ride +15, Sense Motive +19, Survival 14, Swim +18
Languages Common, Dwarven, Elven
SQ

Adaptive Training (Faster retraining of combat feats)
Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training [Bluff, Intimidate])
Armour Training 2 (reduce ACP & increase max dex, move at normal speed in armour)
Bravery (+4 on saves against mind-affecting effects & grants same benefit to allies within 30 ft.)
Climb Skill Unlock (Isn’t denied Dex while climbing)
Combat Mobility (Can take ten-foot steps instead of five-foot steps)
Experienced Armourer (Military stuff worth 2,000 gp or less is bought at 90% of normal price)
Military Reputation (Gains a bonus equal to ½ class level on cha checks against creatures with at least one rank in Profession (Soldier) or an official rank in the military of a country)
Monster Hunter (bonus to identifying monsters equal to Con Mod + can use such knowledge checks untrained)
Old Allies (Able to create contacts)
Soldier’s Past (Sentinel [Alertness/Uncanny Alertness] + Use class level as ranks for Knowledge [Martial] and Profession [Soldier])
Weapon Training 2 (Heavy Blades)(Gains +2 to Attack & Damage rolls with Heavy Blades and with Combat Maneuvers involving those weapons)

Combat Gear +2 Adamantine Greatsword, +2 Glamered Mountain Pattern, Amulet of Natural Armour +1, Belt of Physical Might (Str/Dex) +2, Boots of Striding and Springing, Cloak of Resistance +3, Eyes of the Eagle, Headband of Vast Intelligence +2, Kyton Ring, Monster Almanac (not included in stats above), Ring of Protection +2, Sash of the War Champion
Other Gear All Tool’s Vest, Combat Trained Heavy Horse, Cure Moderate Wounds Potions (4), Fighter’s Kit, 192 gp

Note on Soldier's Past
Soldier's Past for Doalot is set to be Sentinel because of his Guardsman origins, which gives him the feats Alertness and Uncanny Alertness, but the ability can be changed with a week's work to instead give a different set of feats from a selection or give the benefits of a Variant Multiclass (without having to spend feats). For example Doalot temporarily changes to the Artisan option of Soldier's Past when he wants to craft something, as it grants him mastercraftsman. He can also do things like get rage, bardic music/knowledge, wizard school powers, increased intimidation prowess, hexes, familiar's, or bloodlines.

It should succeed on all of the parameters except maybe "Know the battlefield's terrain", which was abit vague of a task.

[Keltest]

Question: What famous characters do people think of as Fighters? Conan is a Barbarian, Han Solo is a Rogue, who's a Fighter?

I mentioned it earlier, but Hercules/Heracles. Perseus. King Arthur and his Knights. Achilles. Lots of greek heroes, actually.

[Morphic tide]

Then you are asking for a crappy fighter as the default fighter. Simple as that. (And to me your perspective of "Concepts described in the default fluff of the class shouldn't be able to be done without external stuff like variants" is rather strange. You shouldn't need to use variants to get the default fluff of the class).

Yes, but having the army stuff in the base class leaves dead class features for some builds. Which is very bad. And a lot of stuff that can be used to lead armies fits as feats. Which Fighter has a handy framework for Fighter exclusive feats. If you really want army leading in Fighters, write up feats. The core 3.5 Fighter is made with the assumption that the feats can fill in for class features, so make that happen. Make feats that have the role of class features that aren't about direct personal combat. Seriously, there are two Soulknife-as-feats posts on these forums that I've seen. An entire class, reduced to a set of not really broken feats. Badly made, probably. Still an entire class turned into a set of feats.


I have to disagree. Here's the fluff text for Fighter:


Just perusing that list, we've got several leader types: conquering overlord, bandit king, and even knights generally had their own private armies that they were expected to lead into battle. "Champion" implies some kind of inspirational figure rather than just someone of extreme violence; soldiers, mercenaries, and guards all belong to a military or paramilitary organization with rank based on merit. Good soldiers get promoted into commanders, good commanders get made into generals. It's a very natural, logical, and realistic transition for any militaristic character. The fact that there is no clean way to play that transition and have it reflected on your character sheet is a problem. Leading men into battle is not quite the same skill as fighting in it, but the two aren't uncorrelated. Focusing on one is (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCaptain) not (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourStarBadass) necessarily (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ColonelBadass) to the detriment of the other.

Now if Marshal were a Fighter PrC, in core, that would be one thing. But it's a weird base class from a weird book. If you're going to keep putting Fighter in the core rulebook of every edition and not Marshal, then the Fighter needs to at least have the option of doing this very basic and intuitive thing that you would expect a Fighter to do.

Again, core, base Fighter should be all about Fighting and 3.5 Fighter was made to have feats replace class features. Make Fighter feats to make them good at army leading and you have what you need. Also, I'm fine with army support in the base class as long as it is in features that can apply to solo combat. What I'm saying is that the core of Fighter is fighting, so nothing in the base class should not support personal fighting power.


A class that only has options in combat is a class that can only interact with a tiny portion of play IMO. I see no reason some players should basically just leave the table just because there is no fight currently happening.

When I say Fighters should Fight, I'm talking similar to how Bards should Diplomance. In both cases you should be able to build into other options, but you won't be as overwhelmingly supreme as if you focused on the class features supporting those options.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yes, but having the army stuff in the base class leaves dead class features for some builds.So, some class skills and some optional feats which the fighter doesn't have to take anyway? Not much of a loss, if you have other options to take instead.


Which is very bad.No it's not. Very few classes have so few class skills that they are forced to max them all out and have to cross-class instead, and no character can take every feat, even a fighter.


And a lot of stuff that can be used to lead armies fits as feats.And skills, which is exactly what I've been suggesting for awhile now.


Which Fighter has a handy framework for Fighter exclusive feats.Or just use the feats we've already got. Like Leadership. And Landlord.


If you really want army leading in Fighters, write up feats.Like Leadership, maybe? And Landlord? You know, the feats I've been talking about that work perfectly for this? Give them the [fighter] tag. Add some skill points and allow the fighter to choose his class skills. Done. At least, to fill this role, which should be only one role of many he should be able to fill, even on the one character..


The core 3.5 Fighter is made with the assumption that the feats can fill in for class features, so make that happen. Make feats that have the role of class features that aren't about direct personal combat. Seriously, there are two Soulknife-as-feats posts on these forums that I've seen. An entire class, reduced to a set of not really broken feats. Badly made, probably. Still an entire class turned into a set of feats.

Again, core, base Fighter should be all about Fighting and 3.5 Fighter was made to have feats replace class features. Make Fighter feats to make them good at army leading and you have what you need. Also, I'm fine with army support in the base class as long as it is in features that can apply to solo combat. What I'm saying is that the core of Fighter is fighting, so nothing in the base class should not support personal fighting power.Make the fighter-only feats like modular class features which are much more potent than most feats, and yes, this works. All fighters ought to have a few staples, however. War-lored is a good one, for instance, that any fighter can use, no matter his desired characterization and intended warrior archetype. Even with that, a massive skill boost is still a needed thing. If you want to keep the fighter chassis basically the same (except kill all those dead levels, damnit!), then start adding chasers onto other feats, such as Dodge scaling, adding an immediate action 5' step, AND adding Tumble as a class skill, with an extra skill point per level that can only be invested in that skill. And this is one of the weaker, lower level [fighter] feats we'd need to write up.

Regular feats aren't worth their weight in class features, so we need to make sure these ARE.


When I say Fighters should Fight, I'm talking similar to how Bards should Diplomance. In both cases you should be able to build into other options, but you won't be as overwhelmingly supreme as if you focused on the class features supporting those options.Diplomacy (and lots of other skills) isn't and shouldn't be bard-exclusive. It could easily be part of the fighter package, as demanding concessions from foes you've beaten is part and parcel of being a warrior, especially for a noble-born knight. So give it to players as an option. If it doesn't fit their character, make sure they have enough options to choose from so they don't need to take it if they don't want, while still feeling good about making the choice.

Your character has "fighter" written on his character sheet, but unless you're going for the blandest of stereotypes, "fighter" merely defines what mechanics he uses. To himself, his family, his friends, and his enemies, he's a noble, or a duelist, or a swashbuckling ladies' man, or a knight errant, or a samurai, or the biggest thug on the block, or a warlord, or a repentent criminal trying to escape his past, or even several at once.

"Fighter" is just mechanics. It's the designers' jobs to make sure that it can be used to build actual people, and the fighter class fails seriously hard.

[Morphic tide]

So, some class skills and some optional feats which the fighter doesn't have to take anyway? Not much of a loss, if you have other options to take instead.

No it's not. Very few classes have so few class skills that they are forced to max them all out and have to cross-class instead, and no character can take every feat, even a fighter.

And skills, which is exactly what I've been suggesting for awhile now.

Or just use the feats we've already got. Like Leadership. And Landlord.

Like Leadership, maybe? And Landlord? You know, the feats I've been talking about that work perfectly for this? Give them the [fighter] tag. Add some skill points and allow the fighter to choose his class skills. Done. At least, to fill this role, which should be only one role of many he should be able to fill, even on the one character..

Make the fighter-only feats like modular class features which are much more potent than most feats, and yes, this works. All fighters ought to have a few staples, however. War-lored is a good one, for instance, that any fighter can use, no matter his desired characterization and intended warrior archetype. Even with that, a massive skill boost is still a needed thing. If you want to keep the fighter chassis basically the same (except kill all those dead levels, damnit!), then start adding chasers onto other feats, such as Dodge scaling, adding an immediate action 5' step, AND adding Tumble as a class skill, with an extra skill point per level that can only be invested in that skill. And this is one of the weaker, lower level [fighter] feats we'd need to write up.

Regular feats aren't worth their weight in class features, so we need to make sure these ARE.

Diplomacy (and lots of other skills) isn't and shouldn't be bard-exclusive. It could easily be part of the fighter package, as demanding concessions from foes you've beaten is part and parcel of being a warrior, especially for a noble-born knight. So give it to players as an option. If it doesn't fit their character, make sure they have enough options to choose from so they don't need to take it if they don't want, while still feeling good about making the choice.

Your character has "fighter" written on his character sheet, but unless you're going for the blandest of stereotypes, "fighter" merely defines what mechanics he uses. To himself, his family, his friends, and his enemies, he's a noble, or a duelist, or a swashbuckling ladies' man, or a knight errant, or a samurai, or the biggest thug on the block, or a warlord, or a repentent criminal trying to escape his past, or even several at once.

"Fighter" is just mechanics. It's the designers' jobs to make sure that it can be used to build actual people, and the fighter class fails seriously hard.

The reason I mentioned Bards Diplomancing is because they are the best at it in core. They can do other things well, but not as well as they Diplomance. Giving those feats you mentioned the [Fighter] tag (which I expect to be either splat or third party shorthand for Fighter bonus feats because it isn't on the SRD I use, which seems to be core only) is fine for me. Just don't stick things that can't be useful in solo combat to the base class. Stuff that is useful in solo combat but also leading armies, fine. Stuff that is useful in solo combat and diplomacy, first, HOW, second, that's pushing it for me.

Adding class skill that can be ignored? Sure. Adding skill points? Fine. Int synergy? Also fine, because several good Fighter feats are locked behind Int prerequisites already. As for class skill pick, that's more a general fix than anything else. 3-5 skills to pick for a character to treat as class skills at all levels is a sort of thing that is a useful general fix, not just a Fighter fix.

[Hal0Badger]

Are people seriously arguing that they don't want the Fighter to have skills? That's insane. Experts have skills.


No, I do not argue that he should not have skills: More skill points, several other skill like balance, tumble etc., maybe even extra use of skills, skill tricks. All can be a part of the fighter. However, asking why don't have diplomacy, or demanding they should have, is not matching with presented chassis. If you find the chassis (pure martial-combat master) lacking even in concept, by all means, go change it as you wish. But having a class solely focusing on that actually satisfies a portion of the game. Someone wishes to build a true master of martial-combat? Going full fighter should be an option. Someone wants to improve their martial capabilities, while letting other abilities a bit behind?? They should get some fighter levels in their build (rogue 4/fighter 2 for example).

Adding socials skills changes the chassis. It is not a bad thing, however you should realize what you are doing is getting the class out of his intended role. Personally, I would go redoing Marshals for general/warlord approach.

Disclaimer though: I agree within the given situation, Fighter class cannot even perform his intended role.




No, the problem of the Fighter is that all he has is a verb: Fight. When the game calls for leading, or tracking, or discovering, or investigating, or exploring, or negotiating, he has nothing to do. That's bad, and if you can't figure out something for the Fighter to do in those situations, he should not exist.

Disagree. Class gives away those skills/abilities, to excel at martial-combat situations. Problem is, he gives away those abilities, yet cannot meet the "martial-combat master" tag. His focus on combat it lacking, or bloated with numbers. As an example, doing triple digit damages with a mainly fighter class is not that hard, due the inflation of numbers. But a fighter has very limited tactical option aside from "just attacking". There are no useful maneuvers against larger opponent than yourself for example. A few feats tags some disables to your attacks, however they are tied behind large amount of feat taxes.

You might not like a focused class, and on that I understand, but I see no reason why they should not exist.

[Hal0Badger]

Question: What famous characters do people think of as Fighters? Conan is a Barbarian, Han Solo is a Rogue, who's a Fighter?


Zaknafein Do'urden comes to mind.

I am pretty sure Conan is mixture of Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter, as it is represented in the books.

I would like to say Solomon Kane, but he is probably a multi-class as well.

If we go to anime section, Roronoa Zoro would be one, but since the extra-ordinary feats he shows, it is closer to a Warblade I guess.

Guts from Berserk, is definetely a pure fighter at least a good majority of the story (I kinda stopped reading after a point).

[Cosi]

However, asking why don't have diplomacy, or demanding they should have, is not matching with presented chassis. If you find the chassis (pure martial-combat master) lacking even in concept, by all means, go change it as you wish. But having a class solely focusing on that actually satisfies a portion of the game. Someone wishes to build a true master of martial-combat? Going full fighter should be an option.

Combat and non-combat are different parts of the game. If you allow people to trade combat power for non-combat power (or vice versa), you are breaking the game. Full stop. The concept of "only has combat abilities" is broken, without ever looking at the implementation you suggest.


Adding socials skills changes the chassis. It is not a bad thing, however you should realize what you are doing is getting the class out of his intended role. Personally, I would go redoing Marshals for general/warlord approach.

But his intended role is bad for the game. It breaks the game the second the DM tweaks the ratio of combat to non-combat encounters, and it gives the Fighter an incentive to respond to any social situation by smashing things until it turns into a combat situation.


You might not like a focused class, and on that I understand, but I see no reason why they should not exist.

Because they destroy game balance, and they don't add anything to the game. Don't want to to stuff outside combat? Great, just don't use your abilities. Don't demand that everyone whose character concept is Hercules or Solomon Kane not have abilities to use.

[Lans]

A class that only has options in combat is a class that can only interact with a tiny portion of play IMO. I see no reason some players should basically just leave the table just because there is no fight currently happening.

I think there are enough nonclass resources, that a character can cover a lot of noncombat options with them if the class resources can cover the combat options.

Edit- for example a collection of masterwork tools, and magical skill enhancers probably costs less than upping a magical sword to the next level.

[Hal0Badger]

Combat and non-combat are different parts of the game. If you allow people to trade combat power for non-combat power (or vice versa), you are breaking the game. Full stop. The concept of "only has combat abilities" is broken, without ever looking at the implementation you suggest.

No you are not breaking anything. Full stop.

Seriously, skills have other uses as well, they can be used to traverse obstacles out of combat. Just because you lack social skills, it does not mean that character is *broken* in any sense.

I would add several knowledge skills to identify monsters, more athletic skills like balance/tumble, maybe spot/listen as well. But demanding diplomacy to be part of it, does not cut into the chassis, whether you like it or not. If you intend to change chassis, that something different, and can be done with other classes or PRC that focuses on that part. For example, being a general is good PRC in my eyes.

As a side-note, I use intimidation as my social skill with a fighter base, but that's my preference, and might not be a good substitute.



But his intended role is bad for the game. It breaks the game the second the DM tweaks the ratio of combat to non-combat encounters, and it gives the Fighter an incentive to respond to any social situation by smashing things until it turns into a combat situation.


No it does not, at all. Not every class should contribute to the every given situation, especially specialized characters. If you do not trade something for specialization, than what is the point of playing a jack of all trades character?

Besides, in 3.5, combat is a major part.



Because they destroy game balance, and they don't add anything to the game. Don't want to to stuff outside combat? Great, just don't use your abilities. Don't demand that everyone whose character concept is Hercules or Solomon Kane not have abilities to use.

If you are not playing that concepts, pick something else? I mean, if I wanted to play a rogue like, silver tongue character, I would pick a different class. If a character has multiple of that concepts, it means it is a multi-class. If that character excel in every given abilities, for example both being a silver tongue and very good martial-combat master, it means he is high level character.

I do not see, how specialized classes breaks anything.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's not terribly difficult to tweak the fighter class such that it has out of combat applications without forcing people to take outside-of-combat abilities. Allow fighters to use fighter bonus feats (simplified as [fighter] feats) to take things that broaden their outside-of-combat abilities in order to A.) flesh them out as actual people, and to B.) give people things to do outside of combat.

Let's take one example from the psionics system: the Psicrystal Affinity feat. Psicrystals have tons of uses, both in combat and outside of combat. They can be used as scouts, universal translators, night watch, orbital bombardment platforms, a receptical for psionic focus (useful in itself both in and out of combat), and on, and on, and on.

Similarly, the War-Lored ability is useful both in and out of combat, granting the fighter some Knowledge-mancy to utilize for strategic and tactical use, in addition to granting the party another source of non-battle information, as well. I'm sure we can think up numerous class features for fighters (that aren't feats) to take up some of those horrible dead levels.

Alternately, grant fighters even more feats to fill those dead levels with, and homebrew a metric ton of [fighter] feats to take with them, one of which could easily be War-Lored, and another could be a fitting (albeit not necessarily psionic) variation of the Psicrystal Affinity feat, or an altered version of Obtain Familiar, or even a version of the Wild Cohort feat designed for a mount and/or utility helper, though all of those should have better scaling for a non-spellcasting character (due to not being able to buff their pet/friend/mount/whatever).

[ScrambledBrains]

So, I know the OP of this thread has seemingly already gotten the information they wanted, but I figured I'd wager my two CP on this. I'm not going to approach this from a balancing standpoint, per say-My ability to balance is by no means great and I'd probably screw it up if I attempted it. I'm going to look at something a bit different, a bit easier to place: Their gameplay fantasy.

What I mean by that is that each class has its own unique vision of what someone wants to be when they pick it. When someone picks a Ranger or a Barbarian, they want to be a man/woman of the wild, either the eagle-eyed hunter and tracker or the bestial beserker. When someone picks a Samurai or a Paladin, they want to be an honor and duty bound warrior, either to a clan or to Good and Law. When someone picks a Swashbuckler or a Warblade, they want to be a charismatic fighter, either the fancy Errol Flynn type or the "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!" gladiator type. Keep in mind I'm only discussing a small fraction of classes here, but there's a narrative fantasy and gameplay fantasy associated with most, if not all of the classes. Also keep in mind that any or all of these men could still be leaders of their own squads and/or companies of troops/followers. I don't feel being a leader of men is explicitly connected to Fighters.

With that in mind, we have to take a look at the narrative and gameplay fantasy the Fighter has...which is, he doesn't. Or rather, he has these faint wisps of one offered by WOTC, but those are why he's in the position he's in in the first place: He's not specialized in a game that encourages specialization.

Therefore, what I feel a rework/houserules for the Fighter has to do is find him a niche of some description as a place to start, somewhere to begin his gameplay and narrative fantasy. And I think I've found one...the professional soldier.

What the fighter should be about is arriving at a situation, getting a quick visual of the battlefield situation and then responding appropriately, the guy with the gear for any situation and the tactical know-how to use it, combined with the calm and calculating ability to know when to use it. This isn't to say they can't be charismatic in their place or have other skills of some description(heck, most professional soldiers are also skilled in a few things besides their chosen profession), but this is, I feel, a good place to start. I leave it to more creative homebrewers than myself to figure out how to fill such a niche. :smallsmile:

[stanprollyright]

The reason I mentioned Bards Diplomancing is because they are the best at it in core. They can do other things well, but not as well as they Diplomance.

This is entirely untrue. Bards don't have any special talent for diplomacy, they just happen to have it as a class skill and have charisma synergy. That's it. Any character can have good cha and take skill focus and be better at diplomacy than a bard. That's also not even the bard's primary schtick; their main area of expertise is buffing. That fact that they can excel at both, and about 30 other things at any given time, is what makes bard a better class than fighter.

[Cosi]

I would add several knowledge skills to identify monsters, more athletic skills like balance/tumble, maybe spot/listen as well. But demanding diplomacy to be part of it, does not cut into the chassis, whether you like it or not. If you intend to change chassis, that something different, and can be done with other classes or PRC that focuses on that part. For example, being a general is good PRC in my eyes.

Okay, you seem to be making a completely different point than I thought. Yes, you can give the Fighter non-combat abilities that aren't diplomacy. But you have to give them some non-combat abilities. That said, this doesn't seem to square with the rest of your position about how the Fighter should be a pure martial combat master.


No it does not, at all. Not every class should contribute to the every given situation, especially specialized characters. If you do not trade something for specialization, than what is the point of playing a jack of all trades character?

"Contribute in every situation" doesn't mean "has no weaknesses". The Wizard can contribute in and out of combat in a variety of ways, but he has weaknesses (e.g. no healing). Consider the alternative. If you have Combat Characters and Non-Combat Characters, half the party is sitting out every encounter. That's bad design.


If you are not playing that concepts, pick something else?

But some people have the character concept "Fighter, but does stuff out of combat". There's no reason for the class to support that to be anything other than Fighter.


If a character has multiple of that concepts, it means it is a multi-class.

I am profoundly skeptical of claims that you can do anything like that with 3e multi-classing. Since multi-classing forces you to start over, you end up with a variety of non-level appropriate concepts, which is not level appropriate. People who want sword powers and spell powers in 3e don't play a Wizard 5/Fighter 5, they play some kind of PrCed Gish or Duskblade.

[Keltest]

Okay, you seem to be making a completely different point than I thought. Yes, you can give the Fighter non-combat abilities that aren't diplomacy. But you have to give them some non-combat abilities. That said, this doesn't seem to square with the rest of your position about how the Fighter should be a pure martial combat master.

He's saying that the baseline fighter class, before you add in player customization like feat selection and skill point distribution, should be all about fighting, and nothing else. The other non-fighting stuff can come from skills, or feats, or items, or magic tap-dancing jackrabbits that live in your backpack if you can obtain some, but the actual class features need to all contribute to making the fighter better at fighting as their primary function.

[Morphic tide]

This is entirely untrue. Bards don't have any special talent for diplomacy, they just happen to have it as a class skill and have charisma synergy. That's it. Any character can have good cha and take skill focus and be better at diplomacy than a bard. That's also not even the bard's primary schtick; their main area of expertise is buffing. That fact that they can excel at both, and about 30 other things at any given time, is what makes bard a better class than fighter.

Actually, every non-spell Diplomacy buff is also available to Bards, and a couple of the spells too, and they have features for the role of Diplomancy, the power of warping sense and storylines with Diplomacy or effects with similar use to Diplomacy. A Bard optimized for Diplomancy is better at it by quite a bit than a Wizard optimized for Diplomancy.

Also, class skill and attribute synergy is more than enough to be a monster at something. Because you aren't crippling your character by buffing the attribute at the cost of others and you aren't losing skill points to cross class skills. That's why Bards are best at Diplomacy in core. They have some spells to boost it, they have nothing to lose by boosting Charisma as their only attribute of choice and they have three of the four major social skills. Even their class features include Diplomancy benefiting stuff.

And while Bards are designed as buffers, they can have basically the same power with buffs off of just the stuff put into Diplomancy. Charisma affects their other things just as much as it does Diplomancy, so they can be amazing buffers at the same time as being able to perform (Ex) Charm as an at-will.

Although the point you are making about Bards being a better class because they have multiple things to do with all builds is a good point.

To get this back on topic, maybe a Fighter overhaul should be focused on being the smart, precise combatant, focusing on Dexterity and Intelligence, while the Barbarian takes the role of hardline "big dumb fighter," only they can scare the **** out of people out of combat to make people not call their horrible bluffs and to get other people to cut the **** with their bluffs. Which is to say lots of Intimidate stuff and possibly a way to get Intimidate to Bluff and/or Sense Motive. Or just have Strength count for those three things. Still no Diplomacy on Barb, but having Barb specifically be the huge intimidating warrior fills in a niche and gives Barb something to do out-of-combat, no matter how limited.

Although giving every class an extra 2 skill points per level to fill in Spot and Listen ranks with, while making those class skills for all, would solve a surprising amount of problems. After all, they can choose to use those 2 extra points in non-sense things, or they can actually do guard duty correctly.


Since multi-classing forces you to start over,

No, it does not. That's 2e or 1st edition, not 3.x/PF. You start at the bottom of the new thing, but you keep all your previous stuff.

[Morphic tide]

He's saying that the baseline fighter class, before you add in player customization like feat selection and skill point distribution, should be all about fighting, and nothing else. The other non-fighting stuff can come from skills, or feats, or items, or magic tap-dancing jackrabbits that live in your backpack if you can obtain some, but the actual class features need to all contribute to making the fighter better at fighting as their primary function.

Not even primary function, secondary function is fine with me. As long as they all have combat as a direct function, rather than an indirect roundabout one.

For example, Bluff or Diplomacy to Intimidate is fine, for a very simple example. Anything that uses a non-combat function as a way to improve combat functions is fine with me, especially because they encourage getting things not normally combat related. Anything that can help a group fight, I'm fine with, as long as it still works in solo combat. Crafting? I'd prefer not to have that in the base class, but it directly helps in combat with just one step of removal. Craft weapon/armor > fight with weapon/armor.

[Milo v3]

Yes, but having the army stuff in the base class leaves dead class features for some builds. Which is very bad. And a lot of stuff that can be used to lead armies fits as feats. Which Fighter has a handy framework for Fighter exclusive feats. If you really want army leading in Fighters, write up feats. The core 3.5 Fighter is made with the assumption that the feats can fill in for class features, so make that happen. Make feats that have the role of class features that aren't about direct personal combat. Seriously, there are two Soulknife-as-feats posts on these forums that I've seen. An entire class, reduced to a set of not really broken feats. Badly made, probably. Still an entire class turned into a set of feats.
You realise mass combat as still combat right? All you need to make the fighter good at leading armies is something like "You may act as if you had ranks in Profession (Soldier) equal to your class level." and maybe some Knowledge (Geography) ranks.


When I say Fighters should Fight, I'm talking similar to how Bards should Diplomance. In both cases you should be able to build into other options, but you won't be as overwhelmingly supreme as if you focused on the class features supporting those options.
Except your asking for "Fighter can only fight unless you take optional stuff", while Bards have "I know things", "I buff people", "I can heal people", and "I can be sneaky" as things in it's class. Bard isn't as focused on Diplomacy as your asking Fighter to be with fighting.

[Keltest]

Except your asking for "Fighter can only fight unless you take optional stuff", while Bards have "I know things", "I buff people", "I can heal people", and "I can be sneaky" as things in it's class. Bard isn't as focused on Diplomacy as your asking Fighter to be with fighting.

Bards are perfectly capable of selecting spells that don't heal, or buff, and skills that aren't sneaky. I'm not sure why a bard's spell selection and skills don't count as optional while a fighter's feats and skills do.

[Milo v3]

Bards are perfectly capable of selecting spells that don't heal, or buff, and skills that aren't sneaky. I'm not sure why a bard's spell selection and skills don't count as optional while a fighter's feats and skills do.
I'd love to see a core bard that cannot buff considering bardic music. But spells and class skills are actually part of the class. Skills do count, but right now Fighters suck at them, so you need to make fighters better at skills to be good enough to count, and it seems like they are opposed to making fighters good at any skill that doesn't help you stab someone.

[Keltest]

I'd love to see a core bard that cannot buff considering bardic music.

Doesn't really answer my question. Yes, their bardic music is *a* buff, but to get access to it they need to spend skill points. So I ask again, why is it bard class features obtained through skills and selections don't count as optional, but fighter abilities gained by feats do?

[Morphic tide]

You realise mass combat as still combat right? All you need to make the fighter good at leading armies is something like "You may act as if you had ranks in Profession (Soldier) equal to your class level." and maybe some Knowledge (Geography) ranks.

Or you can have buffs that can apply to yourself when alone, as well as allies when they are around. Or stuff to debuff large groups of enemies, like being able to reliably Intimidate them into Panicking.


Except your asking for "Fighter can only fight unless you take optional stuff", while Bards have "I know things", "I buff people", "I can heal people", and "I can be sneaky" as things in it's class. Bard isn't as focused on Diplomacy as your asking Fighter to be with fighting.

I'm asking for all the features to tie into Fighting, all making the Fighter better at Fighting personally in some way. Army supporting stuff is fine as long as it also applies in solo fights. Which is not that hard at all for buffs. Stuff that boosts fighting which is keyed to non-combat stuff, like Diplomacy, more Bluff synergy for better Feigns, Intelligence synergy to have more non-combat things and so on. The quickest way to destroy the "big dumb fighter" is Intelligence to to-hit, which then makes quite a few things open up. Then, the better-scaling half of the non-feat reason you get Strength is gone. Later in the class, perhaps at level 3 or 4, you can have Intelligence replace more of Strength's use, perhaps having Intelligence count as a partial or caped Strength for feat purposes.

Edit: Non-combat relevant skills are okay, as long as the skill points are numbered based on how many combat and athletics relevant skills you have. Off the very top of my head, that's at least 6 skill points per level for Spot, Listen, Climb, Swim and Bluff and Sense Motive(for Feign).

[Nifft]

Doesn't really answer my question. Yes, their bardic music is *a* buff, but to get access to it they need to spend skill points. So I ask again, why is it bard class features obtained through skills and selections don't count as optional, but fighter abilities gained by feats do?

I suspect the disconnect here is that Fighters have SO FEW OPTIONS that doing any one thing is the most they can hope to accomplish, while a Bard can do several things easily -- they those things are technically options, but they're not mutually exclusive, so it's not like a Fighter who gets at most one option.

... at least that's what I think the other person is saying.

[OldTrees1]

Doesn't really answer my question. Yes, their bardic music is *a* buff, but to get access to it they need to spend skill points. So I ask again, why is it bard class features obtained through skills and selections don't count as optional, but fighter abilities gained by feats do?

So you would be okay for the Fighter base class to have some non fighting class features provided they were dormant until skill points were spent?

Wow, and here people were merely asking you to state your agreement with increasing the Fighter's allotment of skill points and expanding their skill list.

[Morphic tide]

I suspect the disconnect here is that Fighters have SO FEW OPTIONS that doing any one thing is the most they can hope to accomplish, while a Bard can do several things easily -- they those things are technically options, but they're not mutually exclusive, so it's not like a Fighter who gets at most one option.

... at least that's what I think the other person is saying.

You talking about me? The reason I want everything in the "Fighters always have it" part of the class to be directly applicable to personal combat is so that a Fighter 20 completely devoted to personal combat has nothing in their build that is useless for that. Having the creature identifying Knowledge skills(Which is Local for humanoids) as well as Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Bluff are fine with me. One ties into a way of fighting and the other with a type of character who has a lot of fighting skill. And Sense Motive and Bluff actually have direct combat relevance with Feigns.

The reason why I see crafting as at the edge of what I'm willing to accept is that in storytelling of basically all sorts, the person who makes the weapons is almost never the one using them. How many old stories, myths and legends and such, have the hero make their weapon of choice? How many of those have the hero not use magic directly to face their foes? However, it's an increasingly common thing in modern RPGs, though rarely as part of the story, and is only one step removed from combat.

[Nifft]

You talking about me?

Looks like I was talking about Milo v3.

Follow the quote arrow in the posts backwards to see the post to which I had responded.

[stanprollyright]

The reason why I see crafting as at the edge of what I'm willing to accept is that in storytelling of basically all sorts, the person who makes the weapons is almost never the one using them. How many old stories, myths and legends and such, have the hero make their weapon of choice? How many of those have the hero not use magic directly to face their foes? However, it's an increasingly common thing in modern RPGs, though rarely as part of the story, and is only one step removed from combat.

Does this help your headcannon?



Craft (Int)
[...]
Repairing Items
Generally, you can repair an item by making checks against the same DC that it took to make the item in the first place. The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth of the item’s price.

[Morphic tide]

Does this help your headcannon?

Stuff like that is actually a point against it for me. But again, I can accept Craft ability in base Fighter. I don't like the idea, but am not harshly against it.

[stanprollyright]

Stuff like that is actually a point against it for me.

How so? Seems pretty reasonable for a soldier-type to learn to maintain his own equipment.

[Morphic tide]

How so? Seems pretty reasonable for a soldier-type to learn to maintain his own equipment.

Soldier type is not the only way to have a Fighter. And maintenance is rather different from fixing it after it is broken entirely. However, I just dislike that. I'm not fully against it.

What I want to see in Fighter is five things:

Fighting so well that they can be valid in higher op Caster fights, if only as the guy who does the killing to end it/die component of scry or die tactics.

Being able to trade potential combat power for non-combat things, with Fighter feats for group fighting and managing armies, which extends to court drama.

Proper class feature replacing Fighter feats. They have a lot of feats, it's their thing. Get a way to use them. Like having not-strictly-combat things as options.

Stuff that ties normally-separate-from-combat things to combat. Better Feign stuff encourages Bluff skill, and Moral bonuses can be set to scale off Diplomacy.

A few class features that make basic combat ability always happen. I'm fine with them enabling non-combat power, or requiring non-combat power. Like Feigns.


Overall, allow the option for the Fighter to be absolutely nothing but combat focus without a single feat or class feature as dead weight. If they have to pick up non-combat power anyway for their class feature to work, great! It's like how Bards can't ignore their buff skills. Or be unable to be emergency party face.

[Keltest]

How so? Seems pretty reasonable for a soldier-type to learn to maintain his own equipment.

while this is true, the skills used for maintaining equipment, like sharpening your sword and replacing a few links in your chainmail, are very different from the skills used to produce the equipment in the first place. If your sword gets a big crack in it, for example, youre never going to repair that in the field, period. You would basically need to reforge the entire blade, which will probably result in a reduction in quality, size or both. Unless you grew up in a culture where blacksmithing skill is taught as part of your general education as a child, it is likely that your soldier type person doesn't have the faintest idea how to actually make a sword.

Having said that, lots of legends involve the hero creating their own weapon, so I would allow it as a class skill myself.

[Thaneus]

Dunno if someone else already mentioned it, but one Class feature can be something like Bardic Knowledge, just for the art of war instead. Lets call it Knowledge of War or something.
Get you class level on check related to war be it history (important battlegrounds), craft (maintaining war tools), profession (commanding officer), ... as 1st level class feature.
But it should not be possible with this to craft a trebuchet or a trench, however he knows the place where to build and how to use it.
This would already cover some loose ends.

Another idea, something like Aptitude from Warblade but a bit different: At 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 a Fighter can select a new "primary" weapon. For this he gain a new set of "X" number of own fighter only feats which he can replace as a set. To attune to the new primary weapon he need to exercise 1 hour any time of day, which should not be interrupted.

Like this he can adapt to several situations and is more versatile, but please don't hit me if this is to powerful (at least for me it does not seem like it).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Dunno if someone else already mentioned it, but one Class feature can be something like Bardic Knowledge, just for the art of war instead. Lets call it Knowledge of War or something.You mean like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510439-Returning-the-Fighter-to-relevance&p=21542139&viewfull=1#post21542139)?

[Ivogel]

How about...

At every odd-numbered fighter level, increase one of your ability scores by 1. It can't be your highest score (if multiple ability scores are tied, they all count as highest, disregard any increases through magic items or other special modifiers)

This way the fighter gets something every level. Increase charisma for the leader, Int for the tactician and skill points, Wis for the grizzled experienced mentor, etc. Also helps with the fighters poor saves and easier access to feats like combat expertise and the combat focus chain.

[Thaneus]

You mean like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510439-Returning-the-Fighter-to-relevance&p=21542139&viewfull=1#post21542139)?

I know someone already would have thought about this.

[stanprollyright]

Soldier type is not the only way to have a Fighter.

So now every Fighter concept needs to use every single class skill? Not all Rogues are thieves, maybe Sleight of Hand should be cross-class for them.


And maintenance is rather different from fixing it after it is broken entirely


while this is true, the skills used for maintaining equipment, like sharpening your sword and replacing a few links in your chainmail, are very different from the skills used to produce the equipment in the first place.

If you can point me to another skill in D&D that's more appropriate, I'm all ears (and don't say "profession(soldier)"). Remember, you take penalties to craft for not having the proper equipment (in this case a forge), and you still need raw materials, meaning you've got to be in a place where you can buy or gather the appropriate materials. Also, not all weapons and armor are made from metal. It'd be pretty easy to make a spear or a quarterstaff or a club while trekking through the forest.

[Morphic tide]

So now every Fighter concept needs to use every single class skill? Not all Rogues are thieves, maybe Sleight of Hand should be cross-class for them.

What part of this:

However, I just dislike that. I'm not fully against it.

do you not understand? A class skill is entirely fine with me, it's that someone implied having a class feature related to it. Class skills can be ignored. Seriously, off of stuff directly related to combat there's a lot of Knowledge skills and Bluff and Sense Motive for Feign. I'm fine with Fighter keying stuff off of Intelligence and Charisma.

[stanprollyright]

A class skill is entirely fine with me, it's that someone implied having a class feature related to it. Class skills can be ignored. Seriously, off of stuff directly related to combat there's a lot of Knowledge skills and Bluff and Sense Motive for Feign. I'm fine with Fighter keying stuff off of Intelligence and Charisma.

I'm not sure who implied what that you're responding to, but I at least am not talking about specific class features related to crafting, more like general class features that let you gain your choice of extra class skills, or add your BAB to a skill or three, or letting you use Profession (Solder) in place of certain skills.

I also like the idea that Improved Feint gives you Bluff as permanent class skill, Leadership gives you Diplomacy, etc. so that Fighters who want those skills can get them without sacrificing combat power.

On that note, I am starting to understand why people are reluctant to have Diplomacy as a native class skill for the Fighter. "Diplomacy" is the opposite of violence, and Fighters are specialists in violence. I would like there to be a relatively simple and straightforward way to get it if you choose, so that General Badass can negotiate a surrender without taking Bard levels.


Another idea, something like Aptitude from Warblade but a bit different: At 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 a Fighter can select a new "primary" weapon. For this he gain a new set of "X" number of own fighter only feats which he can replace as a set. To attune to the new primary weapon he need to exercise 1 hour any time of day, which should not be interrupted.

Yeah, something like this would be nice. I even think that as you level up (or maybe with a feat) you should eventually gain the ability to switch it as a full-round action. I think I'd personally limit it to: "You get Weapon Focus for free, which you can switch between weapons. This takes an hour of uninterrupted training at level 1, a minute at level 7, a full round action at 13. Any other feats that apply to a specific weapon (i.e. weapon specialization) can also be switched with this ability."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

On that note, I am starting to understand why people are reluctant to have Diplomacy as a native class skill for the Fighter. "Diplomacy" is the opposite of violence, and Fighters are specialists in violence. I would like there to be a relatively simple and straightforward way to get it if you choose, so that General Badass can negotiate a surrender without taking Bard levels.The best generals of the modern era could Diplomacize with the best of them. I don't imagine you get a bigger circumstance bonus than slaughtering an entire army with your own two hands.

[stanprollyright]

That sounds like Intimidate to me

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That sounds like Intimidate to meHistorical generals often did forge treaties and alliances, so there's no reason why someone in a leadership position (even a warrior) shouldn't know how to use Diplomacy when it comes right down to it.

Especially if a fighter is supposed to come across as a master of various facets of war. Treaties and alliances are a HUGE part of that.

If your particular character is more of a grunt or a Hercules type, then just don't invest in it.

[Morphic tide]

Historical generals often did forge treaties and alliances, so there's no reason why someone in a leadership position (even a warrior) shouldn't know how to use Diplomacy when it comes right down to it.

Especially if a fighter is supposed to come across as a master of various facets of war. Treaties and alliances are a HUGE part of that.

If your particular character is more of a grunt or a Herculese type, then just don't invest in it.

And the option to not actively put anything into it is important to me. Of course, I'm working on a writeup to be criticized in this thread for more specific things, mostly to know what to put into feats. One of the intents is to have non-combat ability as a side effect of pursuing combat ability. Also, having a to-hit vast enough to eat up -15 to to-hit without much issue. Granted, that's more a case of room for optimizing to the high heavens than being inherently bull****. Charisma and 1/2 Intelligence to to-hit isn't that huge, unless you are stacking for it. And if you are stacking for it, it's not that much bigger than going whole hog into Strength. Besides, the Charisma to to-hit is temporary. Longer than most fights, applies to the group with Will saves getting the same boost, practical cooldown should be short enough that DMs can excuse it most of the time. Granted, in my limited play experience, they could have little issues with declaring cooldown not over, so Fort save or Fatigue. Seriously, 10 minutes is a grand 100 rounds. 50 times your move speed distance, if you are going slow. D&D movement is weird.

[Flickerdart]

Historical generals often did forge treaties and alliances, so there's no reason why someone in a leadership position (even a warrior) shouldn't know how to use Diplomacy when it comes right down to it.

Since the "retirement plan" of an archetypical fighter is carving out his own kingdom, leadership and diplomatic type abilities towards the later levels make sense. Many mundane heroes of folk tales also best their foes through the alliances they forged with various magical animals and beings, so this sort of ability makes sense for two independent reasons.

You'd need more than just Diplomacy, of course - perhaps an ability that allows the fighter to extract a symbolic token from an ally that represents that ally's loyalty, providing the fighter with the ability to draw on that ally's power in some way. Such a mechanic could also be used for fighters who'd rather take trophies from defeated monsters. Did Hercules need a wizard to craft the Nemean Lion's hide into impenetrable magic armor? No, he just skinned the overgrown cat himself!

[Morphic tide]

Since the "retirement plan" of an archetypical fighter is carving out his own kingdom, leadership and diplomatic type abilities towards the later levels make sense. Many mundane heroes of folk tales also best their foes through the alliances they forged with various magical animals and beings, so this sort of ability makes sense for two independent reasons.

You'd need more than just Diplomacy, of course - perhaps an ability that allows the fighter to extract a symbolic token from an ally that represents that ally's loyalty, providing the fighter with the ability to draw on that ally's power in some way. Such a mechanic could also be used for fighters who'd rather take trophies from defeated monsters. Did Hercules need a wizard to craft the Nemean Lion's hide into impenetrable magic armor? No, he just skinned the overgrown cat himself!
...dammit, now I actually want to figure out how to make that work... TO THE WRITEUP! I've had the tab open working over my Fighter fix for two days already... Why must people give me more fitting ideas too complicated for feats!

[Flickerdart]

...dammit, now I actually want to figure out how to make that work... TO THE WRITEUP! I've had the tab open working over my Fighter fix for two days already... Why must people give me more fitting ideas too complicated for feats!

The extract gift spell could be a decent starting point, allowing fighters to grant themselves certain bonuses in a ritual involving a willing ally or defeated enemy. Extract gift confers skill or ability score bonuses, but you can add other stuff. Imbue with spell ability is another option you could look at for inspiration, or the Spellthief class for a hostile version. Ur-priests steal powers from unwilling (and unwitting) Outsiders, which might also be helpful.

[stanprollyright]

...dammit, now I actually want to figure out how to make that work... TO THE WRITEUP! I've had the tab open working over my Fighter fix for two days already... Why must people give me more fitting ideas too complicated for feats!

Honestly I think the best way to incorporate everything is to fill dead levels with "Fighter Talents" that you can mix and match.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly I think the best way to incorporate everything is to fill dead levels with "Fighter Talents" that you can mix and match.

Just make sure they're level-appropriate. "Technically the fighter can take this at level 1!" unfairly nerfed a lot of feats.

[Morphic tide]

Just make sure they're level-appropriate. "Technically the fighter can take this at level 1!" unfairly nerfed a lot of feats.

The fix to that issue is scaling feats, one of the surprisingly rare things that makes a lot of things work a lot better because they don't start big. And the Fighter Talents sounds like a way to have Fighter feats that aren't so easily lootable by other classes, while being noticeably stronger because there's a fixed number of them...

So, anyone got actual crunch suggestions for these things and suggestions for how to pack down feat chain taxes into scaling feats? My idea for turning the 4 feat Weapon Focus chain into a single scaling feat is to have it scale with level in some way, while specifically counting as the actual chain for prerequisites at the needed levels. Another feat tax remover is to use the thing that makes Monk/Truenamer a monster that can't be hit. Sure, the build involves a horribly worded PRC that tries to merge Monk and Truenamer things, but it exists... I can't remember what they are called, but they are abilities you automatically get for having specific feats. You clip one more feat off of feat chains with that, so you can have enough feats to have serious investment in two or three different types of fighting as a fighter with some left over for non combat stuff. I think the ideal goal is to have two good fighting styles available with enough class resources left over for some social stuff, for Fighters. That way, having good melee, ranged and workable social capacity in one build is doable. Makes Fighter a solid t3 if it's pulled off.

[Keltest]

If you can point me to another skill in D&D that's more appropriate, I'm all ears (and don't say "profession(soldier)"). Remember, you take penalties to craft for not having the proper equipment (in this case a forge), and you still need raw materials, meaning you've got to be in a place where you can buy or gather the appropriate materials. Also, not all weapons and armor are made from metal. It'd be pretty easy to make a spear or a quarterstaff or a club while trekking through the forest.

Bit late, but how about the appropriate weapon proficiency? Being proficient with a longsword means you know how to use it effectively and how to take care of it.

[Hal0Badger]

Just make sure they're level-appropriate. "Technically the fighter can take this at level 1!" unfairly nerfed a lot of feats.

Tagging a BAB requirement, and that requirement only, would fix a lot of that issue.

Best part of playing a spellcaster is, usually when you hit a certain level where new spell-level is unlocked, all the options from that spell list is auto-avaliable to you. All you need is that caster level.

One of the worst part of playing a fighter is, even the slightly interested feats are tied behind feat taxes, usually useless crap feats no-one would ever bother if they were not preq. Like dodge, or Weapon focus.

[OldTrees1]

Tagging a BAB requirement, and that requirement only, would fix a lot of that issue.
Robilar's Gambit(has a BAB+12 requirement) vs the Karmic Strike feat chain is a good playtest of that theory.

I think you are correct.

[Arbane]

Tagging a BAB requirement, and that requirement only, would fix a lot of that issue.

Best part of playing a spellcaster is, usually when you hit a certain level where new spell-level is unlocked, all the options from that spell list is auto-avaliable to you. All you need is that caster level.

One of the worst part of playing a fighter is, even the slightly interested feats are tied behind feat taxes, usually useless crap feats no-one would ever bother if they were not preq. Like dodge, or Weapon focus.

Agreed. If someone wanted to nerf wizards immensely, making spells require you to know/memorize them in chains would be a good way. (Want Fireball? Make sure you have Burning Hands and Scorching Ray memorized first.)

One Nice Thing For Fighters Pathfinder has been working on is better alternatives to the often-useless Combat Expertise.

[Vaz]

Looking at it more and more, the Warblade is simply the way to go, but coming up with a custom Discipline is better.

After all, you can be a fighter without being a Fighter. What a fighter does is simply have Bonus Feats. That the FBF list sucks is an issue.

From my experiences in the military, while the stereotypical jarhead who eats metal (on both sides of the figurative coin) is a good soldier, that Jarhead knows how to fight, and do it well with a variety of weapons. But on top of that, they have knowledge of battle tactics how to hide, move quietly, and at speed. I mean the typical infantry soldier in any Western military is a either a Scout, or a Ranger, but a Fighter shouldn't be thick unless the intention is to be thick throygh character concept.

However, Warblade fixes that; sure you get less bonus feats (4, rather than 11), you also get a Strikes, Boosts, and Stances.

13 Strikes/Boosts, and 4 Stances, and maybe a choice from twice that.

Some of the other things soldiers can do are awesome, such as long periods without rest, or standing on guard, covering long distances at speed, looking after the party in extreme conditions. Completely obviated by the party being slower, until the party get a horse.

Things like Endurance (Diehard?), Run, Alertness, Blind Fight, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Irin will, Great Fortitude, Quick Draw, Self Sufficient, Toughness/Greater Toughness, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Specialization Tree;

All of these things within the PHB feel like stuff a fighter should be able to do. Although I'm looking from an established military here as a background rather than someone who punches peoples faces in in a tavern.

[ngilop]

Wow... so late to this party it is not funny.

I have to agree with what was said
It not more feats that is going to help, it feats that are actually competitive against spell.

For example I made a series of war cry feats that range from bless to shout to vigor. Then I broke the tactical fighter and dread naut prc abilities down into feats. As well as made combat feats scale based on base attack bonus

Giving the fighter more skill points and more skill is of course a must have fix.

Then you need to give the fighter actual class abilities.
Example: I gave the fighter the ability to do a full attack as a standard action, gave him a self-only time stop that could be used con mod times a day, allowed him to turn people into 3rd level warriors for X amount of days etc.


In the end you just need to give fighters abilities that seem appropriate at that particular level.

First to fifth fighter is decent as is, just a few add-ons is nice.

Sixth to tenth the fighter needs to have a combat edge over all other classes as well as some out of combat utility plus he needs to start getting abilities that are not easily duplicated with spells

Eleventh to thirteen the fighter needs to start having super human abilities, jumping further able to shrug off insane amounts of punishments, command others through sheer force of personality

Fourteenthat through eighteenth the fighter should be breaking the 'laws' of physics. Sundering mountains, moving so fast you cannot see it, ignoring Spells Cuz he said so.

Nineteenth and twentieth the fighter should be the single most feared person to go up against combat wise, the dude chopped down a damn mountain to get to the underworld, ripped the arm off an invulnerable legendary creature and bet it to death... with its own arm. Fought the god of war's Avatar to a stand still for 3 days and nights.


That's what the fighter should be doing in my vision. But I am definitely pretty alone in that vision on these boards

[Morphic tide]

Wow... so late to this party it is not funny.

I have to agree with what was said
It not more feats that is going to help, it feats that are actually competitive against spell.

For example I made a series of war cry feats that range from bless to shout to vigor. Then I broke the tactical fighter and dread naut prc abilities down into feats. As well as made combat feats scale based on base attack bonus

Giving the fighter more skill points and more skill is of course a must have fix.

Then you need to give the fighter actual class abilities.
Example: I gave the fighter the ability to do a full attack as a standard action, gave him a self-only time stop that could be used con mod times a day, allowed him to turn people into 3rd level warriors for X amount of days etc.


In the end you just need to give fighters abilities that seem appropriate at that particular level.

First to fifth fighter is decent as is, just a few add-ons is nice.

Sixth to tenth the fighter needs to have a combat edge over all other classes as well as some out of combat utility plus he needs to start getting abilities that are not easily duplicated with spells

Eleventh to thirteen the fighter needs to start having super human abilities, jumping further able to shrug off insane amounts of punishments, command others through sheer force of personality

Fourteenthat through eighteenth the fighter should be breaking the 'laws' of physics. Sundering mountains, moving so fast you cannot see it, ignoring Spells Cuz he said so.

Nineteenth and twentieth the fighter should be the single most feared person to go up against combat wise, the dude chopped down a damn mountain to get to the underworld, ripped the arm off an invulnerable legendary creature and bet it to death... with its own arm. Fought the god of war's Avatar to a stand still for 3 days and nights.


That's what the fighter should be doing in my vision. But I am definitely pretty alone in that vision on these boards

Because a lot of that stuff in either nonsense that has basically nothing to do with Fighter or is far more fitting for Barbarian.

[OldTrees1]

Because a lot of that stuff in either nonsense that has basically nothing to do with Fighter or is far more fitting for Barbarian.

Again I have to ask you, in your paradigm, how does a high level Fighter engage with, struggle against, and eventually defeat a planeshifting dragon?

[Arbane]

Because a lot of that stuff in either nonsense that has basically nothing to do with Fighter or is far more fitting for Barbarian.

"Fighters FIGHT. They don't get to do ANYTHING cool that is not directly related to causing and enduring hitpoint damage (and possibly one combat maneuver)."


Again I have to ask you, in your paradigm, how does a high level Fighter engage with, struggle against, and eventually defeat a planeshifting dragon?


"They get help from the party spellcaster, or from MagicMart's spellcasters, or better yet, they stand back and let the IMPORTANT people save the day, like Gygax intended."

[Kelvarius]

I remember in 2.5 how Fighters were pretty great. From what I remember, by taking Weapon Specialization (Which was better than just a flat +2 damage back then) they, and only they, were able to make up to 5 attacks per round. Any other Martial class could get up to 2 attacks. At least I think that's how it worked. It's been a long time.

Anyways, with that in mind, would a simple change of allowing Fighters to take Full Attack actions as a Standard action be a good thing? It wouldn't solve their non combat options, but it would definitely help them actually be useful in their supposed niche.

Edit: Ah, I didn't read through the entire thread. Just saw that it was a mentioned idea.

[ngilop]

Because a lot of that stuff in either nonsense that has basically nothing to do with Fighter or is far more fitting for Barbarian.


You and people like you are why the fighter is such a crappy class in 3rd ed.

not even counting the fact that the barbarian as a base class is superfluous and that the fighter and bard should have just been 1 class.

Look at this bawss thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It)( i had one similar to it a couple weeks earlier but was derided and ridiculed for literally saying the same things) by zeigander

I abhor those who are 100% accepting of the fact that wizards, clerics, druid, and the like can bend reality to their whim and that the laws of physics on earth and beholden to those with spells.

BUT OH MAN.. those fighters and rogues can only do what a REAL LIFE HUMAN BEING from earth can do

i call BULL**** on that.

A high level fighter should be able to replicate the deeds of heracles or beowulf, or any of those other mythic and legendary warriors of earth's past.

this is how I went about fixing the fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?318268-My-Latest-big-project!-(-a-big-deal-fighter-fix)) Some might not agree with it some might.

The point is those who deny that a fighter needs level appropiate ( and not earth bound) are just lieing and making the game unfun for a sizable number of players

[Nifft]

not even counting the fact that the barbarian as a base class is superfluous and that the fighter and bard should have just been 1 class.

The Bard should have been a PrC which required at least 5 levels of Fighter (and no more than 8 such levels), then at least 5 levels of Thief (and no more than 9 such levels), before learning Druidic magic.

We'd need a proper Thief class for that, of course.

Fochlucan Lyrist did Bards "right" in 3e.

[Morphic tide]

Dude, I'm fine with Fighters getting stuff to deal with casters. Arbitrary SR isn't the way to go. Having something outside of SR that reduces the effect of spell casting, like a forces non-SR miss chance fluffed as smacking spells out of the way and dodging the normally undodgeable, both works better and makes more sense. After all, SR can be bypassed almost trivially by any half decently optimized full caster. Miss chances? Much harder, sense most spells never have to deal with it, so tools to deal with it don't exist much.

As for Barb and Bard not "deserving" to be separate from Fighter, 3.5 is not the time of class overhaul kits, like 1st edition Paladins being a Fighter type. Barb and Bard have very different character archetypes from Fighter. The Fighter can be made distinct by focusing on being the skilled warrior. Barbarians wield rage to shatter mountains, Rangers can inflict the wrath of nature upon the unliving stone,(something Druids should have much less of to give Rangers a better niche as casters) Bards fast-talk angles and demons and Wizards to pull it for them. Fighters? They warp what is and isn't possible through skill. Not magic or rage or the force of their mind or soul, just seemingly-impossible, almost-literally godlike skill. Warping reality with a shout is... Well, barbaric. It should be a Barbarian thing.

[Keltest]

Again I have to ask you, in your paradigm, how does a high level Fighter engage with, struggle against, and eventually defeat a planeshifting dragon?

They use their Mighty Shield of Not Getting Killed to deflect (yes, deflect) the dragon's breath weapons, their Armor of Also Not Getting Killed to survive getting smacked with the physical weapons, their Legs of Moving Around, Which Are Actually Just Normal Legs to get close to the dragon, and cleave it with their Mighty Sword of Cleaving Things.

A high level fighter should be using legendary equipment and their amazing fighting skills to do things a peasant with a shield couldn't do if they had a million buffs on during a time stop. This fighter is so good with his shield he can redirect dragonfire with it. He is so good with his armor he can defy physics and take blows that would kill a lesser man without injury.

Basically, a high level fighter should be powered entirely by Rule of Cool.

[Nifft]

Basically, a high level fighter should be powered entirely by Rule of Cool.

Hmm.

So a high-level Wizard is playing Mage: the Ascension, and a high-level Fighter is playing Exalted.

I could actually see that working out pretty well.

[Morphic tide]

They use their Mighty Shield of Not Getting Killed to deflect (yes, deflect) the dragon's breath weapons, their Armor of Also Not Getting Killed to survive getting smacked with the physical weapons, their Legs of Moving Around, Which Are Actually Just Normal Legs to get close to the dragon, and cleave it with their Mighty Sword of Cleaving Things.

A high level fighter should be using legendary equipment and their amazing fighting skills to do things a peasant with a shield couldn't do if they had a million buffs on during a time stop. This fighter is so good with his shield he can redirect dragonfire with it. He is so good with his armor he can defy physics and take blows that would kill a lesser man without injury.

Basically, a high level fighter should be powered entirely by Rule of Cool.

That's what I want. Just, having the universal, all Fighters use this effects in the core class with the narrow use things being Fighter feats of the appropriate level. Not all Fighters are sword and board, but all Fighters eventually deal with transportation disparity.

[OldTrees1]

They use their Mighty Shield of Not Getting Killed to deflect (yes, deflect) the dragon's breath weapons, their Armor of Also Not Getting Killed to survive getting smacked with the physical weapons, their Legs of Moving Around, Which Are Actually Just Normal Legs to get close to the dragon, and cleave it with their Mighty Sword of Cleaving Things.

A high level fighter should be using legendary equipment and their amazing fighting skills to do things a peasant with a shield couldn't do if they had a million buffs on during a time stop. This fighter is so good with his shield he can redirect dragonfire with it. He is so good with his armor he can defy physics and take blows that would kill a lesser man without injury.

Basically, a high level fighter should be powered entirely by Rule of Cool.

1)
How did you get to the planeshifting dragon?
How did you continue to engage the dragon when it shifted again?

2)
So you can survive its breath via deflection and boulders via Armor of Also Not Getting Killed. Points for granting that to Fighters. But that is all their offense vs your defense. What about your offense vs them not being in range defense (remember #1 but also remember Flight when answering)?

3)
This really was more of a question for Morphic tide. Both you and they put limitations on what a Fighter can Rule of Cool. IIRC you have explicitly, in previous posts, allowed the Fighter enough to handle this challenge. I have not seen the same from Morphic tide as of yet. Although please do not let that deter you from answering.


That's what I want. Just, having the universal, all Fighters use this effects in the core class with the narrow use things being Fighter feats of the appropriate level. Not all Fighters are sword and board, but all Fighters eventually deal with transportation disparity.

You still have not answered my question that was explicitly addressed to you. Are you ignoring it for some reason? For your convenience I quoted it here.

Again I have to ask you, in your paradigm, how does a high level Fighter engage with, struggle against, and eventually defeat a planeshifting dragon?

[Keltest]

1)
How did you get to the planeshifting dragon?
How did you continue to engage the dragon when it shifted again?

2)
So you can survive its breath via deflection and boulders via Armor of Also Not Getting Killed. Points for granting that to Fighters. But that is all their offense vs your defense. What about your offense vs them not being in range defense (remember #1 but also remember Flight when answering)?

3)
This really was more of a question for Morphic tide. Both you and they put limitations on what a Fighter can Rule of Cool. IIRC you have explicitly, in previous posts, allowed the Fighter enough to handle this challenge. I have not seen the same from Morphic tide as of yet. Although please do not let that deter you from answering.



You still have not answered my question that was explicitly addressed to you. Are you ignoring it for some reason? For your convenience I quoted it here.

Its not a fighter's job to track the thing down and keep it from planeshifting. its the fighter's job to hit it and survive its attempts to hit back. If for some inexplicable reason there isn't someone better equipped to shut down planar travel, I guess he will have to quest for the Magical Dragon Harness of Preventing Them From Planeshifting or something. Fighters use tools and aren't ashamed of it.

[Morphic tide]

You still have not answered my question:

By hitting first hard enough to Stun the dragon. Or something else to stop the Planeshift from happening. Perhaps Grapple type effects that let you hang on while beating the hell out of them no matter the transportation option they try to use. Whatever the case, it's invalidating the Planeshift as an obstacle, rather than getting a similar effect. Sure, you have to ambush them in most cases to get it off. So? The surprise round alone is a big enough advantage to always want the sneak attack. Perhaps involving Sneak Attacks.

[OldTrees1]

Its not a fighter's job to track the thing down and keep it from planeshifting. its the fighter's job to hit it and survive its attempts to hit back. If for some inexplicable reason there isn't someone better equipped to shut down planar travel, I guess he will have to quest for the Magical Dragon Harness of Preventing Them From Planeshifting or something. Fighters use tools and aren't ashamed of it.

So your paradigm has the Fighter go on a quest to gain travel to the Dragon and a quest for a Dimensional Anchor Harness or something. You forgot to answer how your paradigm handles the Fighter getting the Harness onto the Flying enemy. However I think I see a pattern and predict the Fighter goes on a quest for some Winged Boots or a Pegasus mount.

Not everyone agrees with your particular solution but, as I expected, you do explicitly have a working solution.


By hitting first hard enough to Stun the dragon. Or something else to stop the Planeshift from happening. Perhaps Grapple type effects that let you hang on while beating the hell out of them no matter the transportation option they try to use. Whatever the case, it's invalidating the Planeshift as an obstacle, rather than getting a similar effect. Sure, you have to ambush them in most cases to get it off. So? The surprise round alone is a big enough advantage to always want the sneak attack. Perhaps involving Sneak Attacks.

This does not answer reaching a foe that is on another plane nor reaching a flying foe. You answer for stopping the dragon from continuing to planeshift(stun it) or making planeshifting not an obstacle(grapple to travel with the dragon) would work after these obstacles. However I am unable to see how your paradigm gets them to that point. Please elaborate.

[Milo v3]

Not everyone agrees with your particular solution but, as I expected, you do explicitly have a working solution.
Considering it doesn't really work with how items work in the game and that there is nothing stopping the group from sharing the "fiat gear" rather than giving it to the fighter, and the fact that "fiat" gear is more of a plot device than actual abilities.... I'm surprised it's considered a working solution.

[OldTrees1]

Considering it doesn't really work with how items work in the game and that there is nothing stopping the group from sharing the "fiat gear" rather than giving it to the fighter, and the fact that "fiat" gear is more of a plot device than actual abilities.... I'm surprised it's considered a working solution.

"Working" as in that kind of encounter is doable in that paradigm vs "Not working" as in that kind of encounter cannot be used under that paradigm.

I do have my own criticism for that particular approach, but I'll let others handle that part of the discussion(like you are doing).

[Morphic tide]

So your paradigm has the Fighter go on a quest to gain travel to the Dragon and a quest for a Dimensional Anchor Harness or something. You forgot to answer how your paradigm handles the Fighter getting the Harness onto the Flying enemy. However I think I see a pattern and predict the Fighter goes on a quest for some Winged Boots or a Pegasus mount.

Not everyone agrees with your particular solution but, as I expected, you do explicitly have a working solution.



This does not answer reaching a foe that is on another plane nor reaching a flying foe. You answer for stopping the dragon from continuing to planeshift(stun it) or making planeshifting not an obstacle(grapple to travel with the dragon) would work after these obstacles. However I am unable to see how your paradigm gets them to that point. Please elaborate.

How many offence options does the Dragon have to fight from the Planeshift? Not that many. Not all characters need to be able to get to the sight of any fight they might face. There's no problem with hiring a Wizard to get you to where the Dragon currently is, from there, travel options are better off as things you invalidate. As for Flight, Immediate actions are a thing, and from there the Fighter only needs to move as far as the Dragon attacks from. Otherwise, the Dragon either runs away or has to deal with the Fighter. Flyby? Have a crazy Jump/Chain Grapple thing as a Prepared Action to get on the Dragon for hitting.

Let's do a little number crunching: At it's longest range, a Cone breath weapon on a Colossal dragon has a 70 ft. range. Standard Jump checks at that level(CR 25, so significantly into Epic) can deal with that hight fairly easily, especially with some low level buff spells(Glibness isn't the only huge skill boost pre-level 10). The longest Breath Weapon range pre-Epic is 120 ft. line. Now, I've seen ways to have +60 to a skill check without going very far out of range of what most characters can expect to get ahold of(granted, half that is cheesing item creation guidelines that every minmaxer takes for granted). A tiny bit of Jump power isn't that hard to integrate. Thing is, not a lot of DMs outside of sadistic or min maxing ones will ignore the Breath Weapon for more range than the Breath Weapon. So, Jump checks and Immediate Actions deal with Flight fairly well, if you have stuff to support jumping onto the moving Dragon.

[Keltest]

The fighter will never be a wizard, no matter how hard you try. Theyre too specialized a concept to handle any given situation with just class features and, in general, are heavily reliant on items to perform their basic function.

But D&D, last I checked, is a team game, so the idea that the fighter MUST be the one to stop the dragon from shifting is, itself, ludicrous. Get somebody who can cast Dimensional Anchor for you, and then proceed to bludgeon the dragon to death by yourself.

[OldTrees1]

How many offence options does the Dragon have to fight from the Planeshift? Not that many. Not all characters need to be able to get to the sight of any fight they might face. There's no problem with hiring a Wizard to get you to where the Dragon currently is, from there, travel options are better off as things you invalidate. As for Flight, Immediate actions are a thing, and from there the Fighter only needs to move as far as the Dragon attacks from. Otherwise, the Dragon either runs away or has to deal with the Fighter. Flyby? Have a crazy Jump/Chain Grapple thing as a Prepared Action to get on the Dragon for hitting.

Let's do a little number crunching: At it's longest range, a Cone breath weapon on a Colossal dragon has a 70 ft. range. Standard Jump checks at that level(CR 25, so significantly into Epic) can deal with that hight fairly easily, especially with some low level buff spells(Glibness isn't the only huge skill boost pre-level 10). The longest Breath Weapon range pre-Epic is 120 ft. line. Now, I've seen ways to have +60 to a skill check without going very far out of range of what most characters can expect to get ahold of(granted, half that is cheesing item creation guidelines that every minmaxer takes for granted). A tiny bit of Jump power isn't that hard to integrate. Thing is, not a lot of DMs outside of sadistic or min maxing ones will ignore the Breath Weapon for more range than the Breath Weapon. So, Jump checks and Immediate Actions deal with Flight fairly well, if you have stuff to support jumping onto the moving Dragon.

So:
Reach the same plane <= pay a caster
Reach airborne enemy <= Immediate Action Jump 60ft(cone), 120ft(line), 180ft(Enlarge Breath) into the air (minus the Fighter's reach). So Jump DCs in the several hundreds (+1ft up = +4DC, without a running start = x2DC, but jump height needed is reduced by reach weapons and natural reach). I take it from this math that you would make high jumping easier for Fighters so they can make those 300-500 DC checks?

[Morphic tide]

So:
Reach the same plane <= pay a caster
Reach airborne enemy <= Immediate Action Jump 70ft, 120ft, 180ft(Enlarge Breath) into the air (minus the Fighter's reach). So Jump DCs in the several hundreds (+1ft up = +4DC, without a running start = x2DC, but jump height needed is reduced by reach weapons and natural reach). I take it from this math that you would make high jumping easier for Fighters so they can make those 300-500 DC checks?

...I though the DC was 1 per foot... Because I saw several cases of a person stating that a Commoner can jump 20 ft. up from a standing start 1 time in 20...

And yes, better high jumping for feats(because archers worth their level don't need it) is part of the idea. Perhaps being able to mix Jump and Charge to get much higher up would work... You could easily excuse 30 ft. off of having Charge mix with Jump, which would also involve making normal Charge longer range. Generally, Fighters should only need casters to get to the fighting, and perhaps keep the fighting going.

[Arbane]

The fighter will never be a wizard, no matter how hard you try. Theyre too specialized a concept to handle any given situation with just class features and, in general, are heavily reliant on items to perform their basic function.


Hold on. Wizards aren't specialized?

Of course Wizards are specialized - it's just that their specialty is currently 'Do Anything', because D&D hath decreed that Magic Can Do Anything with no limitations aside from spell level.


I abhor those who are 100% accepting of the fact that wizards, clerics, druid, and the like can bend reality to their whim and that the laws of physics on earth and beholden to those with spells.

BUT OH MAN.. those fighters and rogues can only do what a REAL LIFE HUMAN BEING from earth can do

i call BULL**** on that.

A high level fighter should be able to replicate the deeds of heracles or beowulf, or any of those other mythic and legendary warriors of earth's past.

No argument there - or even some of the jaw-dropping things people who are alive RIGHT NOW can do.

[Morphic tide]

Hold on. Wizards aren't specialized?

Of course Wizards are specialized - it's just that their specialty is currently 'Do Anything', because D&D hath decreed that Magic Can Do Anything with no limitations aside from spell level.

Hell, Wizards get bonuses for specializing! Not as hard as Psions are required to specialise or generalize, nor are the bonuses(more penalties for generalizing) as important, but it's there.

[OldTrees1]

...I though the DC was 1 per foot... Because I saw several cases of a person stating that a Commoner can jump 20 ft. up from a standing start 1 time in 20...

Here are the rules from 3.5 (Pathfinder has the same +4DC/ft rule). I have no clue how that commoner was passing a DC 80 jump check 5% of the time.

Your Jump check is modified by your speed. If your speed is 30 feet then no modifier based on speed applies to the check. If your speed is less than 30 feet, you take a -6 penalty for every 10 feet of speed less than 30 feet. If your speed is greater than 30 feet, you gain a +4 bonus for every 10 feet beyond 30 feet.

All Jump DCs given here assume that you get a running start, which requires that you move at least 20 feet in a straight line before attempting the jump. If you do not get a running start, the DC for the jump is doubled.

...

High Jump
A high jump is a vertical leap made to reach a ledge high above or to grasp something overhead. The DC is equal to 4 times the distance to be cleared.

[Morphic tide]

Here are the rules from 3.5 (Pathfinder has the same +4DC/ft rule). I have no clue how that commoner was passing a DC 80 jump check 5% of the time.

1st: broken quote was there when I saw the post.
2nd: Like I said, the statement made me think that the ratio was 1 DC = 1 ft.

[Arbane]

It occurs to me that if The Fighter is supposed to Fight, and NOTHING ELSE, Step 1 in making the Fighter Not Suck is to make sure that NOBODY ELSE can Fight.

Which means Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins and what-not need to go to 1/2 BAB, at MOST. Rogues, Bards, Clerics and such, maybe 1/4. Wizards and Sorcerers? They get NOTHING. NO BONUS. At level 10 they still have no idea which end of the spear to hold, they were too busy reading spellbooks. Want a BAB? Multiclass to Fighter, losers.

(I hope it's obvious I'm not serious about this, but this _is_ the Internet, so I feel obliged to spell out that THIS IS SARCASM. It's a bit infuriating to see people arguing that it's OK if the Fighter can only Fight (badly), whilst the Barbarian and the Paladin get cooler tricks AND Fight just as well.)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Its not a fighter's job to track the thing down and keep it from planeshifting. its the fighter's job to hit it and survive its attempts to hit back. If for some inexplicable reason there isn't someone better equipped to shut down planar travel, I guess he will have to quest for the Magical Dragon Harness of Preventing Them From Planeshifting or something. Fighters use tools and aren't ashamed of it.So you want to increase parity with the challenges in the game for fighters by...giving them the ability to use magic items. Which they can already do in the exact same way, so it's not actually a change at all. And it doesn't stop other people doing the same thing, or in the case of the caster classes, actually create them themselves, which the fighter can't do.

So you're just fiating a way for them to overcome the problem and saying it's no longer actually a problem.

Isn't this the Oberoni Fallacy?

[Milo v3]

So you want to increase parity with the challenges in the game for fighters by...giving them the ability to use magic items. Which they can already do in the exact same way, so it's not actually a change at all. And it doesn't stop other people doing the same thing, or in the case if the caster classes, actually create them themselves, which the fighter can't do.

So you're just fiating a way for them to overcome the problem and saying it's no longer actually a problem.

Isn't this the Oberoni Fallacy?
Worse, Oberoni doesn't require the party to put off adventures to quest for the 'macguffins of Allowing the Fighter to Keep Up".

[Alent]

It occurs to me that if The Fighter is supposed to Fight, and NOTHING ELSE, Step 1 in making the Fighter Not Suck is to make sure that NOBODY ELSE can Fight.

Which means Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins and what-not need to go to 1/2 BAB, at MOST. Rogues, Bards, Clerics and such, maybe 1/4. Wizards and Sorcerers? They get NOTHING. NO BONUS. At level 10 they still have no idea which end of the spear to hold, they were too busy reading spellbooks. Want a BAB? Multiclass to Fighter, losers.

(I hope it's obvious I'm not serious about this, but this _is_ the Internet, so I feel obliged to spell out that THIS IS SARCASM. It's a bit infuriating to see people arguing that it's OK if the Fighter can only Fight (badly), whilst the Barbarian and the Paladin get cooler tricks AND Fight just as well.)

So... While I recognize you were being sarcastic... Isn't making everyone 1/4 BAB basically what 5th edition did? :smallconfused:

[Morphic tide]

Worse, Oberoni doesn't require the party to put off adventures to quest for the 'macguffins of Allowing the Fighter to Keep Up".

Or the party already has a version of the Macguffin. Because all the Macguffin should need to do here is get the Fighter to the Fighting, not allow the Fighter to keep up during the Fighting. Unless it's long-term flight... Then, maybe. Alternatively, the Macguffin lets you find the thing you are trying to fight, which the party Wizard can't do on their own because they lack the ability to scry the thing to kill. Or the Wizard has it, and the party just has their Wizard bring them to the Fight.

[Milo v3]

Or the party already has a version of the Macguffin. Because all the Macguffin should need to do here is get the Fighter to the Fighting, not allow the Fighter to keep up during the Fighting. Unless it's long-term flight... Then, maybe. Alternatively, the Macguffin lets you find the thing you are trying to fight, which the party Wizard can't do on their own because they lack the ability to scry the thing to kill. Or the Wizard has it, and the party just has their Wizard bring them to the Fight.

Alternatively you could write the fighter class correctly rather than needing macguffins.

[noce]

I agree with the more skill points thing, adding Thug and Zhentarim features to standard Fighter (without Thug drawbacks).
This is more of a flavour thing, skills are not enough.


In addition to current class features (i.e. feats), the Fighter gains the following:

1st: Focused Training.
You gain proficiency with two of the following: exotic shields, exotic armors, an exotic weapon. You can gain proficiency with two different exotic weapons, thus giving up both exotic armors and shields proficiencies.

3rd level and subsequent odd levels: Emulate Prowess.
You gain a single class feature of another BASE class. You cannot learn to cast spells or manifest powers this way, nor anything similar (initiating maneuvers, shaping soulmelds, truespeak, not even bardic music). You can only chose class features gained at a level up to one level below your Fighter level, and you use your Fighter level minus 1 for determining variables of that class feature.

Examples:
- Starting from 3rd level, you can gain the Flurry of blows of a Monk. When you reach 6th level, the penalty lessens to —1, and at 10th level it disappears.
- Starting from 5rd level, you can gain the Animal Companion of a Ranger. Your Ranger level for calculating the Animal Companion capabilities is your Fighter level -1. Obviously, it's wiser to emulate the Animal Companion of a Druid.
- If you want to learn Improved Combat Style as a Ranger does, you must have at least 7 levels of Fighter and you must already know Combat Style, either previously learning it with the Emulate Prowess class feature or through other means.
- If you take Major Aura from Marshal, the bonus from the aura improves as you gain levels.
- If you take Rage from Barbarian, you can rage more times per day as you gain levels, but you don't automatically get Greater Rage (although you could now take it as another Emulate Prowess class feature in subsequent levels).


This fighter variant is the master mundane class.
It can be built to do almost everything that can be done without magic, although a single fighter can't do everything.
It is a very versatile class, and fighters will differ greatly one from another.
It gives incentives to stay in class, both thanks to scaling class features and thanks to higher level class features.
In addition, it qualifies for PrCs with incredible ease.

It may replace other base classes, both power-wise and flavour-wise.
This is not a bad thing per se, since it is so customizable it will fit every mundane build concept.

[Lans]

So you want to increase parity with the challenges in the game for fighters by...giving them the ability to use magic items. Which they can already do in the exact same way, so it's not actually a change at all. And it doesn't stop other people doing the same thing, or in the case of the caster classes, actually create them themselves, which the fighter can't do.

So you're just fiating a way for them to overcome the problem and saying it's no longer actually a problem.

Isn't this the Oberoni Fallacy?

I feel like asking a fighter to be able to planeshift is like asking them to summon, transmute and resurrect people

[Seerow]

I feel like asking a fighter to be able to planeshift is like asking them to summon, transmute and resurrect people

It's not necessarily asking the Fighter to be able to planeshift though. The scenario was "How does the Fighter deal with a planeshifting dragon?" Planeshifting is one way to deal with that. Being able to consistently disrupt the Dragon's attempts to planeshift or being able to dimensionally anchor a foe are both things I could see being within a high level fighter's wheelhouse.

[Flickerdart]

I feel like asking a fighter to be able to planeshift is like asking them to summon, transmute and resurrect people
I disagree.

Planeshifting is part of the strategic movement arms race that begins with "pack enough food to travel on foot" and eventually turns into mounts, flight, and then planar travel. Imagine a party of four fighters (say, the Three Musketeers plus d'Artagnan, but high level). Do they not deserve to have adventures on other planes?

[Keltest]

Alternatively you could write the fighter class correctly rather than needing macguffins.

And how, exactly, do you write the fighter such that it is capable of punching holes in the planes of reality to track down that dragon while still keeping it grounded as a martial character?

The fact is, asking for a fighter to do that sort of stuff is missing the point. Dimensional lockdown isn't fighting, its magic, and we already have magic users. The fighter is for what happens after the dragon cant flee.

[Lans]

I disagree.

Planeshifting is part of the strategic movement arms race that begins with "pack enough food to travel on foot" and eventually turns into mounts, flight, and then planar travel. Imagine a party of four fighters (say, the Three Musketeers plus d'Artagnan, but high level). Do they not deserve to have adventures on other planes?

I think planeshifting and teleporting are abilities that could be covered by equipment. Do druids get planeshift? Begilers? Dread Necromancer? Warmage? You are asking for the fighter to have a magical ability that even most magical classes lack.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And how, exactly, do you write the fighter such that it is capable of punching holes in the planes of reality to track down that dragon while still keeping it grounded as a martial character?

The fact is, asking for a fighter to do that sort of stuff is missing the point. Dimensional lockdown isn't fighting, its magic, and we already have magic users. The fighter is for what happens after the dragon cant flee.But it IS an aspect of fighting. Movement, maneuvering, and persuit and evasion are all a huge part of any kind of strategic engagement. If an enemy can use it to flee or to reposition or to ambush, or whatever, anyone who wants to fight that enemy needs to be able to deal with it in some way as part of their native abilities, else it's yet another gaping hole in their capabilities (of which the fighter has MANY, which are the problem that everyone here is trying to fix, which you and others are defending rather vehemently because they're "not fighting" [which is incorrect], or because they're "magic, and fighters don't do magic" [which is backwards thinking in the extreme, because you can fight with magic, so it's an aspect of fighting, which should be an aspect of fighter, even if in a limited fashion]).

And no, "send on a quest to get something that anyone else could do" is not an appropriate answer.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like asking a fighter to be able to planeshift is like asking them to summon, transmute and resurrect people


I think planeshifting and teleporting are abilities that could be covered by equipment. Do druids get planeshift? Begilers? Dread Necromancer? Warmage? You are asking for the fighter to have a magical ability that even most magical classes lack.

As the one that mentioned the "defeat planeshifting dragon" encounter, I should also respond to your concerns.

When I think of examples of high level yet pre epic combat that I want high level yet pre epic adventurers to be able to handle, there are a few encounters that come to mind. A flying enemy on another plane is one such example. I would classify this as different from asking the party to summon/transmute/resurrect people because I am talking about overcoming a challenge rather than talking about having a specific method.

You note that some other classes (including the themed casters) lack native means of reaching such a foe. So you propose that area be covered by high level "necessary item" equipment. Such a paradigm is still able to handle such encounters so it is a working system. However if your fix for Fighter includes a mandatory magic item, then you would want to make sure such an item exists and that the Fighter could access and use it.

[Flickerdart]

I think planeshifting and teleporting are abilities that could be covered by equipment. Do druids get planeshift? Begilers? Dread Necromancer? Warmage? You are asking for the fighter to have a magical ability that even most magical classes lack.
Warmages can get it with Eclectic Learning. Dread Necromancers can use Heighten Spell in combination with Advanced Learning to get astral projection (a bit cheesy but hey). Beguilers can use UMD, cast shadow walk, or take Arcane Disciple (Travel) for astral projection or any of a number of domains for gate). Druids can use a Domain Staff of any domain that grants shadow walk, gate or astral projection.

[Dr.Samurai]

Fighters don't need to planeshift.

You can make a feat chain or a set of feat chains for dealing with magical or supernatural creatures, and this could include things like reacting to teleportation/planeshifting with a move+attack, and if part of this chain is disrupting casting or supernatural abilities by threatening or hitting, then this kind of thing might resolve itself.

But should the fighter be able to slice a gateway into another dimension with his sword? No, not in my opinion. You can certainly make a "Mythic Fighter" feat chain, where your fighter happens to be the son of a god, or was dipped in a magic river, or blessed by a fairy or something, and has some latent super powers that are beginning to manifest.

But that type of stuff shouldn't be native to the class. Some people want to play an everyman warrior that is just getting by in a fantasy setting through his skill and mettle. They want to be "normal" in this context. They don't want to slice mountains in half and walk on clouds and all of that other stuff. So... just make it into options that the people that want to play that can choose. But don't bake it into the class as features.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As the one that mentioned the "defeat planeshifting dragon" encounter, I should also respond to your concerns.

When I think of examples of high level yet pre epic combat that I want high level yet pre epic adventurers to be able to handle, there are a few encounters that come to mind. A flying enemy on another plane is one such example. I would classify this as different from asking the party to summon/transmute/resurrect people because I am talking about overcoming a challenge rather than talking about having a specific method.

You note that some other classes (including the themed casters) lack native means of reaching such a foe. So you propose that area be covered by high level "necessary item" equipment. Such a paradigm is still able to handle such encounters so it is a working system. However if your fix for Fighter includes a mandatory magic item, then you would want to make sure such an item exists and that the Fighter could access and use it.If you want to retain the magic item aspect but want it part of the fighter's repertoire, give the fighter a class ability at level 3 or 4 that grants them a constant greater magic weapon effect on any weapon they wield (not just for overcoming DR or whatever), and then expand that into an ability similar to Ancestral Relic for a few important items, such as their armor, a weapon, and either a shield, a secondary weapon, or some other kind of magic item. Give 'em the abiity to change weapon and armor abilities on the fly to deal with changes in combat situations (such as when changing over from a +1 ghost touch greatsword to a +1 distance composite longbow, for instance). There are weapons enhancements that can hit enemies with dimensional anchor, which would make everyone happy, both the people wanting to "keep it all in the family magic items," and the people wanting to give fighters more flexibility and potency against higher tiered allies and opponents.


Fighters don't need to planeshift.Fighters don't need to plane shift. They do, however, need to deal with enemies who do.