Fighter features

[paladinn]

So pondering a variant fighter class. I want to integrate some actual class features and not just have the fighter as a collection of feats. So looking as fighter renditions both before and after 3e, here are some features I'm considering:

(And no, I don't want to go all Tome of Battle)

1. Combat Dominance, aka the "mook rule" - This has been a little-known fighter feature ever since OD&D (or even Chainmail). A fighter facing a mob of mooks (1 HD or less, depending on rendition) can attack a number of times equal his/her fighter level. It's sort of a low-level-but-unlimited version of Cleave. In C&C this has been called "Combat Dominance." I've adapted to allow this for foes up to half the fighter's HD, for that same number of attacks.

2. Fighting Style - from 5e, but actually started in 2e. A bit more than just a +1 Weapon Focus or Specialization bonus.

3. Weapon Training and/or Armor Training - from PF1. Not sure I'd want several iterations of Armor Training; but Weapon Training is like a Weapon Focus and Specialization in one.

I don't want to replace All of the 3e fighter bonus feat slots; I do like the fighter's flexibility. But maybe have the Style and Dominance at L1 or 2, and alternate Weapon Training with a misc feat?

Thoughts?

[KillianHawkeye]

First impression, that combat dominance thing could be pushed back a few levels since it essentially relies on the Fighter being higher level than his foes. Level 4 or 5 seems like a good place for it.

You may also want to track down the 3.5e "Dead Levels" online articles that used to be on the WotC website, they filled in classes' empty levels with some minor features and other bonuses.

[Telonius]

I'd have to see how "Combat Dominance" was worded, but it honestly seems more like a flavor thing to me. If it's just "make extra attacks," in order to make use of it, enemies with a valid number of HD would have to be within reach of the fighter to begin with at the start of his turn. You could help this a bit with various ways of getting Pounce (or giving Pounce as a feature), or having a Reach weapon; but it still strikes me as something that's not going to come up all that often.

If the enemies have HD that low, unless you're siccing Tucker's Kobolds on them, they won't be as much of a threat anyway. (If they are Tucker's Kobolds, they're not going to cluster).

I do think that the ability has a pretty big coolness factor, and is something that a higher-level fighter ought to be able to just do. But I wouldn't consider it a huge bump to mechanical power.



For Weapon Training/Fighting Style, I do have a couple of houserules for Fighters that does something similar. The Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization trees now general feats; but they scale with level. Focus gives BAB/5 (min 1) to hit, Specialization gives BAB/4 (min 1) to damage. Greater (of both) are Fighter-only, and double the bonus. Then, Adaptable Focus as a Fighter Class Feature at level 5. It allows the Fighter to spend an hour of practice to switch the weapon selected. So if they happen to find a really cool Greataxe (but had been working with a Greatsword up to now), it turns into a live option and not just a pile of GP.

[Biggus]

You may also want to track down the 3.5e "Dead Levels" online articles that used to be on the WotC website, they filled in classes' empty levels with some minor features and other bonuses.

It's not much good tbh, but here it is for reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20161031211837/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a

[paladinn]

First impression, that combat dominance thing could be pushed back a few levels since it essentially relies on the Fighter being higher level than his foes. Level 4 or 5 seems like a good place for it.

You may also want to track down the 3.5e "Dead Levels" online articles that used to be on the WotC website, they filled in classes' empty levels with some minor features and other bonuses.

"Dead levels" aren't so much my concern. I just want "plain" fighters to have actually class abilities while not losing All the feat-ness.

Combat dominance in 1e was limited to foes with <1 HD, and grants one attack per fighter level. In C&C it kicks in at L4 and works with foes of 1 HD Or less. 1 extra attack at L4, 2 at L8, 3 at L12. At L16 it works with foes of 2 HD, at L20 it's 3 HD, at L24 it's 4 HD.

My thought is to open it up a bit. At any time, a fighter can make a number of attacks equal to 1/2 his/her HD (round down), up to 5 max, against foes also less or equal to his/her HD, also 5 max. The foes would need to be within reach obviously.

This is obviously a melee ability, so I'm not sure how to translate to ranged attacks.

[eggynack]

ACFs are a good starting place if you haven't considered them already. Zhentarim soldier gives some fancy intimidation buffs for free, and dungeoncrasher gives fancy wall slam buff for not free. But you could always just kinda make them free and/or toss them at different levels if ya want.

[vasilidor]

I feel like Pathfinder did a good job of doing what you want to do.

[paladinn]

I feel like Pathfinder did a good job of doing what you want to do.

PF goes way beyond. You get the weapon and armor training Plus all the feats. I think that's a bit much.

Between general feats and combat feats, a fighter gets one every level. I'd like to give something else Instead of a feat every now and then. And maybe not every level.

[RNightstalker]

PF goes way beyond. You get the weapon and armor training Plus all the feats. I think that's a bit much.

Between general feats and combat feats, a fighter gets one every level. I'd like to give something else Instead of a feat every now and then. And maybe not every level.

Something I've been considering is that the Weapon Focus and so on down the line tree should also apply to a ranged weapon (except Weapon Supremacy). If you go epic they should get an attack bonus every level like they do pre-epic. Fighters are vanilla in most games. What do I do? I fight. If you want to spice up vanilla, I'm sure the DM will help you add some sprinkles, hot fudge, whipped cream and a cherry...now I want ice cream.

As previously mentioned, there could be some good substitution levels (even for another class) that a DM could let you use for flavor.

[liquidformat]

Hey Not sure if this will help you but you are free to use my Fighter (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTsHU6ABZcdx3wZbCln6DDeoZh4PpZopZ8WhXxrFZoY/edit?usp=sharing) variant or use it for inspiration. Also I have been going through 3.5 feats (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pFwSVo331SLpKZRV_1utDb_IBKt4lwNtXlPgEgpjX8w/edit?usp=sharing) and boosting them up to be more worth while and useful.

I did stuff like making feats like weapon focus and two weapon fighting scale with BAB and move a lot of epic mundane feats into the teens where they are actually useful and make sense. And while the Fighter is still very feat based I made them more customizable and an actual force to be reckoned with.

[StSword]

Some ideas I've seen from some variant games

5 Moons- Just as wizards can prepare different spells every day, fighters can trade out their feats. This improves versatility while allowing you to give the fighters less feats/class features in total.

From DCC the Warrior has a class feature- Mighty Deed. It basically allows the warrior to stunt- disarming, tripping, swinging on a chandelier, whatever, without sacrificing damage, in that the warrior can do their full damage and stunt every turn. Would make fighters more versatile, more fun, and avoids those overly fiddly special attack rules, so win win win.

[Maat Mons]

So, how does Combat Dominance work? I mean, when you’re sitting at the table, what’s the series of events that plays out? I’m finding myself imagining a couple of possibilities.

Scenario 1
DM: “You see 4 goblins and a hobgoblin. Your character recognizes that the goblins are less than half his level, but the hobgoblin is more than half his level. Thus, you know you can use Combat Dominance on the goblins, but not the hobgoblin.”

Scenario 2
DM: “You see 4 goblins and a hobgoblin.”
Player: “What are their levels?”
DM: “Your character doesn’t know.”
Player: “So, can I use Combat Dominance?”
DM: “Your characters doesn’t know.”

Scenario 2 Addendum
Player: “I attack one of the goblins.”
DM: “It was less than half your level. Combat Dominance triggers, giving you extra attacks.”
Player: “I use one of my extra attacks on the hobgoblin.”
DM: “The hobgoblin is an invalid target.”

[paladinn]

So, how does Combat Dominance work? I mean, when you’re sitting at the table, what’s the series of events that plays out? I’m finding myself imagining a couple of possibilities.

Scenario 1
DM: “You see 4 goblins and a hobgoblin. Your character recognizes that the goblins are less than half his level, but the hobgoblin is more than half his level. Thus, you know you can use Combat Dominance on the goblins, but not the hobgoblin.”

Scenario 2
DM: “You see 4 goblins and a hobgoblin.”
Player: “What are their levels?”
DM: “Your character doesn’t know.”
Player: “So, can I use Combat Dominance?”
DM: “Your characters doesn’t know.”

Scenario 2 Addendum
Player: “I attack one of the goblins.”
DM: “It was less than half your level. Combat Dominance triggers, giving you extra attacks.”
Player: “I use one of my extra attacks on the hobgoblin.”
DM: “The hobgoblin is an invalid target.”

Basically you attack and work your way through the mob. When you hit your level limit or attack the hobgoblin, you're done.

[lesser_minion]

So, how does Combat Dominance work? I mean, when you’re sitting at the table, what’s the series of events that plays out? I’m finding myself imagining a couple of possibilities.

I guess it could be a standard or full-round action that lets you move some distance without provoking attacks of opportunity and attack the first [class level] creatures you threaten over the course of that move, automatically missing any that are too high level.

It seems to get really complicated when written up in something like the "3e style", unfortunately.

[rel]

Can't comment much without knowing the end goal of the redesign.

Looks pretty similar to the existing fighter to me.

Doesn't address the main issue with the fighter; They have no class specific powers that allow them to solve non-combat challenges.

Even within combat, doesn't address the usual fighter issues of targeting defences other than AC, doing things other than HP damage, dealing with attacks that do the same and dealing with esoteric challenges like an enemy that is flying or invisible or standing back behind a wind wall.

The pseudo cleave attack might have some interesting interactions, but only within the space of dealing HP damage that fighters are already good at. Also, you can't move and full attack in 3.x making the utility limited.
Without a specialised build to take advantage of the new mechanic, you're unlikely to achieve much more than you could with a standard full attack. except at very low levels in niche situations.

[Maat Mons]

You could give Fighter a class featured called Tax Evasion that lets you bypass certain prerequisites for Combat feats. Point Blank Shot, Mounted Combat, ability score prerequisites, nonsense like that. There are also a fair few feats you could just give Fighter as additional bonus feats without unbalancing anything. Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, and Improved Sunder, for example. Fighter could also use more skill points, and maybe a few extra class skills. Acrobatics, Perception, and Sense Motive would seem appropriate. Those last two would turn Fighters into competent guards. Some of the feats that require Fighter levels could probably become class features. Martial Mastery, in particular, is a good candidate for this. Though it could easily be moved down to a much lower level. Some other class features that would be good are an ability to move and full attack, the Brawler’s Martial Flexibility, and Cavalier’s Tactician. Maybe the ability to ignore armor check penalty for Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Ride, and Swim skill checks.

[Prime32]

Doesn't address the main issue with the fighter; They have no class specific powers that allow them to solve non-combat challenges.

Even within combat, doesn't address the usual fighter issues of targeting defences other than AC, doing things other than HP damage, dealing with attacks that do the same and dealing with esoteric challenges like an enemy that is flying or invisible or standing back behind a wind wall.
If you want to represent "superior combatant" in ways beyond bonuses at hitting things, there's a few angles you could take:

The Veteran: A fighter has seen it all, fought just about everything, and either knows what it can do or can figure that out instantly. You're the most vigilant, capable of figuring out your enemy's abilities and seeing through their tricks and disguises. Ever see that Batman story where an old sparring partner instantly pegs him as Bruce Wayne because he can't hide how he fights? Wizards get their knowledge from books, so if you want to know where a monster came from or what it eats, then ask them. But if you want to stop a monster, especially if it's some new breed no one's seen before, ask a fighter.
The Tactician: A fighter uses superior positioning to keep the enemy on their toes. You can punish or restrict certain actions, like AoOs or immediate actions or 5ft steps. Aka "the tank" - not just someone who's hard to kill, but someone with the skill to keep foes away from their squishy allies. You could just give them some kind of "grab aggro" ability, but that's a little unsubtle.
The Determinator: Spellcasters no longer have good Will saves, fighters do. Surely a hardened soldier who levels up through life-or-death situations has more willpower than a bookworm who can level up from the comfort of his armchair, right?
The Team Player: You can help your allies get into position, use boosted forms of aid another, etc. Or the other way around: you benefit more from them using their own support abilities on you, making you a natural spearhead of your group.
The Mage Killer: In D&D being a spellcaster is a skill anyone can learn, and one that's vastly useful in combat. So if your entire character concept is "knows about combat"... well either you're pragmatic about it and become a ranger, using minor spells as a toolbox to cover your weaknesses. Or you have perfectly sound reasons to eschew spells - you know that if you run into, say, a wall of force, it won't be an obstacle for you. Basically: give fighters a scaling ability to destroy spells with their attacks - breaking barriers, instakilling summons, etc. No dispel check needed, but it only works on spells of sufficiently low level, so it's more for defeating mooks and forcing antagonists to take you seriously. If you want to lean harder into this, you could even make fighters flat-out immune to such weak spells, with the explanation that while training they get spellcasting allies to cast spells on them over and over to build up their resistance (there's also precedent in how some spells like cloudkill and trap the soul will fail on creatures of sufficiently high HD).
The Armor Guy: You can make the most of heavy armor and/or shields. Related to the above, D&D art always shows fighters wearing heavy armor to fight wizards who use rays and fireballs, even though this is objectively stupid from a tactical perspective. If you want the iconic D&D fighter to be one who knows combat tactics, then make it so that they have a reason to wear heavy gear even in these kinds of situations.
The Equipment Expert: A broader version of the above. You know how to make the most of equipment, and sometimes can even make items do things others can't. Sometimes it's raw numbers - letting save DCs scale with level to keep them relevant for your whole career. Sometimes it's a matter of technique, like using your flaming sword to cauterise wounds or flick embers at flammable objects to light them from a range. And for intelligent items, the magic sword just likes you more for being able to appreciate it, going out of its way to assist you.
The Leader of Men: Another angle on ranger vs fighter is that rangers are warriors of the wilderness, and fighters are warriors of civilisation. You are good at commanding armies, perhaps having exclusive access to Leadership type abilities (something with precedent in older editions), which also lets you do things out of combat that other classes can't.

[pabelfly]

PF goes way beyond. You get the weapon and armor training Plus all the feats. I think that's a bit much.

Between general feats and combat feats, a fighter gets one every level. I'd like to give something else Instead of a feat every now and then. And maybe not every level.

We tiered Pathfinder Fighter late last year, Fighter moves from about T4.5 in 3e to a solid T4 in Pathfinder. It's better, but not outlandishly so. So I'd add a +1 to just going to the Pathfinder fighter, with my suggestion to be just to keep 3e's general feat progression.

[Eladrinblade]

I've been considering just getting rid of the fighter class as a pc option, and instead giving bonus feats to rangers, paladins, and barbarians, as well as the opportunity to take the weapon specialization line. Bit more complicated than that, but that's basically it. Fighter would still exist as an npc class, and maybe even npc rangers/paladins/barbarians don't get this bonus.

[Maat Mons]

I'd go the other direction and eliminate Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger as separate classes. Instead, they would be archetypes of the fighter class.

[Eladrinblade]

Tomato tomato.

[RandomPeasant]

I'd go the other direction and eliminate Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger as separate classes. Instead, they would be archetypes of the fighter class.

I don't really see the benefit to doing that. All of those classes work as classes in their own right, and are all meaningfully distinct. "Fighter" is just a bad name for a class in that it provides essentially zero information. What does a "Fighter" do? Well, presumably they fight, but there's a whole book full of "stuff you fight" so it's not like not fighting was ever an option. Questions like "how they fight" or "what do they do when it's not a fight" are left unanswered in a way that they are not for, say, the Paladin ("with holy magic and heavy armor" and "by using their holy magic or having a position in some sort of knightly order"). I think D&D would be in a much better place if instead of a "Fighter" you had a "Soldier".

[RNightstalker]

You could give Fighter a class featured called Tax Evasion

LOVE IT!


I don't really see the benefit to doing that. All of those classes work as classes in their own right, and are all meaningfully distinct. "Fighter" is just a bad name for a class in that it provides essentially zero information. What does a "Fighter" do? Well, presumably they fight, but there's a whole book full of "stuff you fight" so it's not like not fighting was ever an option. Questions like "how they fight" or "what do they do when it's not a fight" are left unanswered in a way that they are not for, say, the Paladin ("with holy magic and heavy armor" and "by using their holy magic or having a position in some sort of knightly order"). I think D&D would be in a much better place if instead of a "Fighter" you had a "Soldier".

You've got a point as they've renamed "Magic-User" and "Thief" from previous editions, and fighter could definitely use the same. I like the thought of Soldier, but even then that's only slightly less generic.

[Maat Mons]

If every class represents a very specific concept, players will have no choice but to make characters that match one of those concepts. More generic classes give greater freedom for character concepts. It wouldn’t be good to force every warrior to either have anger management issues, be very pious, or love nature.

From a design perspective, it’s weird to have some classes be very thematically general while others have very specific themes. Since removing general classes shoehorns people into a limited number of concepts, it makes sense to me to remove the specific classes instead. You can still give players mechanical options tied to specific concepts, you just implement them as archetypes instead of separate classes. Nothing is lost, and system design becomes more cohesive.

[paladinn]

We tiered Pathfinder Fighter late last year, Fighter moves from about T4.5 in 3e to a solid T4 in Pathfinder. It's better, but not outlandishly so. So I'd add a +1 to just going to the Pathfinder fighter, with my suggestion to be just to keep 3e's general feat progression.

I want fighters to be more than just bags of feats (ala 3.5). But I think PF goes too far in giving features Plus all the feats.

Historically the one "class feature" that has almost always been there for fighters, but got left out of 3e and later, is Combat Dominance - the ability to have extra attacks against foes below a certain HD - aka the "mook rule." And in 2e (and 1e UA) there was weapon specialization, an attack to both attack and damage (split into 2 feats in 3e). WS was relabeled Weapon Training in PF, and I'd like to grab that as well. But those should Replace the feats gained, not be in addition to.

The two features from 5e that I think will work is the "Fighting Style" gained at L1 (Champion fighters actually get another style later) and the 2 extra ASI's. So I'm thinking Fighting Style, Combat Dominance, Weapon Training and 2 more ASI's as class features, with feats packed in on other levels. Would that be OP? What should be the progression?

[paladinn]

I don't really see the benefit to doing that. All of those classes work as classes in their own right, and are all meaningfully distinct. "Fighter" is just a bad name for a class in that it provides essentially zero information. What does a "Fighter" do? Well, presumably they fight, but there's a whole book full of "stuff you fight" so it's not like not fighting was ever an option. Questions like "how they fight" or "what do they do when it's not a fight" are left unanswered in a way that they are not for, say, the Paladin ("with holy magic and heavy armor" and "by using their holy magic or having a position in some sort of knightly order"). I think D&D would be in a much better place if instead of a "Fighter" you had a "Soldier".

"Fighting man" or "Fighter" has been the name since the beginning. Paladins, rangers and barbarians all were originally fighter subclasses. They actually could be so again.

[JNAProductions]

I agree that in 3.5, the Fighter could DEFINITELY use features that are more than just feats.
I disagree that everything has to be the same as it was in 1974. I mean, if you really prefer older editions of D&D, you could just play them.

For the Fighting Styles, don't Rangers already get those? Could borrow from there.

[Maat Mons]

In a sense, Whirlwind Attack could be viewed as the 3.5 update of Combat Dominance. It’s good for quickly dispatching mobs of low-level enemies, but not really anything else.

[rel]

If you want to represent "superior combatant" in ways beyond bonuses at hitting things, there's a few angles you could take:


Yeah, there's any number of ways you can implement being better at combat beyond more to hit, damage, and attacks numbers.
That's a decent list, and those ideas can be tailored to the preferred power level with specific implementations.

I have literal pages of this sort of thing, and the only reason I'm not spamming it here is I'm still not clear on the OP's design goals, or even the power level they're aiming for.

I get that the Pathfinder fighter and ToB are not solutions the OP likes but I'm don't know why. I know they like the combat dominance pseudo cleave, but again, not sure what about it is appealing.

Makes it difficult to know what to suggest.

[RandomPeasant]

You've got a point as they've renamed "Magic-User" and "Thief" from previous editions, and fighter could definitely use the same. I like the thought of Soldier, but even then that's only slightly less generic.

"Soldier" is importantly superior to "Fighter" in that it gives you some idea of what the class might actually do. Namely, as a "Soldier" you could expect to know how to procure supplies or repair equipment or operate siege machinery or any number of other things that might be useful to the practice of war. There's even a clear reason why you'd eventually get a bunch of tiny men to boss around, as "General" is a natural upgrade path from "Soldier".


If every class represents a very specific concept, players will have no choice but to make characters that match one of those concepts.

"Represent a specific concept" is the thing a class does. The reason you have a "Necromancer" or "Paladin" or "Assassin" class in the first place is so that someone can say "my character is a Necromancer" and the rest of the table can understand "oh, he probably has some skeleton minions and baleful curses" (or holy prayers for a Paladin, or poisonous daggers for an Assassin, and so on). How specific that concept is can vary, but I don't think "Soldier" is that specific of a concept. The Elven longbowman, the Hobgoblin hoplite, the Dwarven heavy infantry, and the Sahuagin amphibious assault troops are all "Soldiers", but they fight in quite different ways.


From a design perspective, it’s weird to have some classes be very thematically general while others have very specific themes.

It's weird but it's also necessary. You are, inevitably, going to have a smaller number of classes in your PHB than you have at the end of the game. That's fine. You can start out with a Rogue (who represents all the various characters who rely on a combination of stealth, wits, and dirty fighting to prevail in their adventures). And that will cover a wide variety of characters pretty well. But you can then eventually add the Swashbuckler (for the guy who specifically wants to play a Jack Sparrow expy), the Scout (for the guy who wants an intersection of "vaguely military" and "wilderness themed"), the Assassin (for the guy who really liked the Malazanian Claws), and the Ninja (or maybe you call it a Shadowdancer or something to feel less orientalist, but you want something for the guy who's doing shadowsteps). Maybe you add some setting-specific ones like the Marked Assassin for someone who wants to use their Mark of Making to murder people real quiet.

Also the more you limit your caster-types to specific themes, the longer you can keep your martial-types relevant before they get some kind of super-power-up of their own, which is important to some people.


Nothing is lost, and system design becomes more cohesive.

One thing is lost when you do that sort of hard reductionism: the ability to have classes with distinct mechanics. The guy who plays a "Barbarian" would really like to have some sort of Rage Meter where his abilities get more powerful as he fights and he is consequentially encouraged to recklessly charge into the thick of battle and deal and take great amounts of damage. A "Ranger", on the other hand, wants to play in almost the opposite way, being encouraged to move around the edges of battle and engage with superior mobility. By far the easiest way to do this (especially if you want to retain any semblance of game balance) is by having them be distinct classes.


"Fighting man" or "Fighter" has been the name since the beginning. Paladins, rangers and barbarians all were originally fighter subclasses. They actually could be so again.

It seems to me that a great many things could be, and that the threshold for "should be" must consequentially rest somewhere higher than that.


I agree that in 3.5, the Fighter could DEFINITELY use features that are more than just feats.

As far as the 3.5 Fighter goes, it basically has three problems:

1) it's treated as a "beginner" class, but requires a large amount of system mastery to build effectively (some of this is due to "martials suck and you have to optimize them more", but also "here's a bunch of feats, go shopping" is just an inherently complicated character concept)
2) once built, it tends to be enormously brittle, with any particular Fighter specializing in a tactic like "tripping" or "charging" or "archery" and struggling to be effective in situations where that tactic is not applicable
3) the class gives you stone nothing in terms of non-combat capabilities (I think you can make a serious case that the Commoner has a better set of class skills, and it gets as many skill points)

If you're not willing to ditch all the bonus feats, you're pretty much stuck with 1 and all you can do is signpost better. The easiest way to fix 2 is to stick them with something that lets basic weapon attacks be reasonably threatening so you can pull out a sword or a bow despite being normally specialized into something else (the trouble is figuring out a way to do this without sending whatever you are specialized in to the moon). You can fix 3 by harkening back to the days of AD&D's "Name Level" and giving them free Leadership, but honestly that has problems in that it creates a lot of complexity the other characters may not be well-aligned with. You kinda have to figure out what you think "appropriate non-combat utility" is before you can do much here.

[NichG]

Lots of ways one could go about it, but the thing stuck in my head right now is that for the most part weapons are very samey despite different form factors implying all sorts of different kinds of things different weapons should be able to do aside from 'hit to inflict damage'. So I could see Fighters having class features that let you basically get sets of things based on the weapon you're using.

So for example, not really sorted by level, but features like:


Based on the category of weapon wielded, the Fighter may use a specific Weapon Trick while wielding that weapon as an Immediate action. Many (but not all) tricks must be combined with a successful attack, or modify a single attack.

- Dagger: Close and Personal. As an immediate action, your next attack with your dagger targets Touch AC instead of normal AC.

- One-handed Swords: Parry. Immediate action, make an attack roll and use the result in place of your AC for one round.

- Two-handed Swords: Sweep. Immediate action, your next attack can also apply to any adjacent spaces to that enemy which are also within your reach.

- One-handed Axes: Hook. When successfully hitting, as an Immediate action you may move your target to another square adjacent to you.

- Two-handed Axes: Split. When successfully hitting, as an Immediate action you may apply a one-round duration debuff to the target which sets their DR to zero. This applies after the damage from the hit is dealt (so only on subsequent hits).

- One-handed Bludgeon (Mace/Club/Morningstar/Flail): Concussion. On a successful hit, Immediate action to apply a non-stacking -2 penalty to all rolls to the target for one round. Immunity to Stun/Daze prevents this.

- Two-handed Bludgeon: Send Flying. Immediate action to automatically push a target you have successfully hit with an attack away from you a distance equal to 5ft per point that your Strength modifier exceeds theirs.

- Polearm: Halt Charge. When successfully hitting, as an Immediate action you deny the target their next Move action, or the remainder of their movement on an AoO.

- Whip/Spiked Chain: Swing. You may make an Immediate action to pull yourself to the nearest adjacent square to an object or creature of at least your size category that is within your weapon reach.

- Crossbow: Hipfire. You can fire a single shot with your crossbow as an Immediate action.

- Shortbow/Longbow: Shoot projectile. You may spend an Immediate action to attempt to shoot a projectile or ray out of the air with one of your own. Against a projectile fired with an attack roll, you must meet or exceed that roll with your own attack roll. Against a non-attack 'projectile' like the bead of a Fireball, you must hit AC 25. The projectile is intercepted halfway along its trajectory - in the case of a grenade weapon, a fireball, etc, it will still detonate, just at that position.

- Shield: Take Cover. As an Immediate action, you may reroll a failed Reflex saving throw against an area of effect.



When wielding this type of weapon, you gain a passive benefit associated with the weapon. Dual Wielding different weapon types grants both passives, but doubling up on the same weapon does not double up on a given passive. A passive that modifies attacks only modifies attacks with the given weapon type.

- Dagger: Your critical threats automatically confirm, and your crits also deal 1 point of Constitution damage.

- One-handed Swords: Enemies making a melee attack against you and missing from within your weapon reach provoke an AoO from you.

- Two-handed Swords: You may automatically move 5ft whenever felling an enemy with an attack.

- One-handed Axes: Gain a free Disarm attempt when successfully hitting an enemy. You are treated as having Improved Disarm for this attempt, even if you do not normally qualify.

- Two-handed Axes: Your successful critical hits sever limbs if they deal at least half of a target's maximum hitpoints in one strike. Your choice whether to sever an arm or a leg. On a severed leg, the target's ground speed is reduced to 5ft. On a severed arm, they cannot hold an item in that hand. GM's choice whether other 'limbs' are available (or not available) to target on things with odd morphologies.

- One-handed Bludgeon (Mace/Club/Morningstar/Flail): Your successful attacks cause targets to lose their Dexterity modifier to AC for one round.

- Two-handed Bludgeon: Your attacks ignore DR up to your Strength modifier.

- Polearm: You may make AoOs against targets entering your threatened area, not just targets moving through it.

- Whip/Spiked Chain: Your Disarm maneuver can be used against any small worn or carried object on a target's person (rings, amulets, potions, gauntlets, helmet, etc; not clothing, armor), not just their weapon. On a successful Disarm, you may automatically retrieve and pocket the object or transfer it to a free hand without dropping your weapon.

- Crossbow: You may perform AoOs with your crossbow.

- Shortbow/Longbow: Whenever you miss a target, your next shot against that target gains a non-stacking +5 Circumstance bonus to-hit. If a target moves before the next shot is taken, this bonus is lost.

- Shield: Your shield's AC bonus applies to your Touch AC.


(Another idea would be to make it so each weapon category basically gives you a certain Fighter Bonus Feat while wielded, as a third one of these).

Also, some general 'be more flexible with combat mechanics' stuff:


(Medium/low level feature)

You may spend an immediate action to step 5ft and take an AoO if it would mean that a target would provoke an AoO from you if they otherwise would not have (for example, bringing their movement path into your threatened area). You can only use this if you can and do take the resulting AoO.



(Medium level feature)

ACP from armor you wear is reduced by 3, and the Maximum Dex Modifier is increased by 1.



(Low level feature)

Feats where you normally must choose one type of weapon for them to apply to, instead apply to all weapons. (Weapon Focus, Weapon Expertise, Improved Critical, etc).



(High level feature)

You can wield weapons in ways not normally suited to them. When drawing a weapon, you may replace either the Trick or Passive of one of your weapons with the Trick or Passive from a different weapon type.



Gain a second Swift/Immediate Action.

[Maat Mons]

So… you’re rebutting my criticism of overly specific classes by pointing out that no class will be perfectly general? That feels… like it’s not a disagreement?

I don’t think it’s necessary to introduce new classes in later books. Across the whole lifespan of 5e, they only added one new class after releasing the Players Handbook. I’m confident the edition would have still been a huge success even without Artificer. So, I’d say it’s quite feasible to keep the same number of classes from beginning to end of an edition.

I don’t see any reason that archetypes, subclasses, or whatever the game chooses to call them couldn’t add new and interesting mechanics to the original class.

I’m not actually wholly opposed to the addition of new classes later in an edition, supposing they’re quite different from the existing ones. But I feel that the 3.5e Ninja and Scout should definitely have been ACFs for Rogue.

[Eladrinblade]

Some of those classes are meant to be hybrids between two existing classes. Like a ninja is a rogue/monk, swashbuckler is rogue/fighter, scout is rogue/ranger, etc.

Anyway, the only real problem with my idea is if somebody wants to play a LN heavy armor character. Can't be a lawful barbarian, paladins have to be LG, so that leaves ranger to spend two feats on armor proficiency. However, if I'm being honest, I think LN is a crap alignment, especially for players so it doesnt bother me much. In general, if you want to be a "heavy armor fighter" who isn't a paladin, you'd just go barb and spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency. Save rages for those times you want to be power attacking.

I'll admit, probably the best option would be to make a "knight" class and have paladin be a prestige class that certain knights could take. Give knights social/knowledge skills/abilities, mounted options (maybe a "companion"), more than 2 skill points, that kind of thing. I still think all three classes should have bonus feats and weapon specialization, though barbs should probably get less bonus feats than the others.

[RandomPeasant]

So… you’re rebutting my criticism of overly specific classes by pointing out that no class will be perfectly general? That feels… like it’s not a disagreement?

It's absolutely a disagreement. If you want full generality, you want a classless system. Once you accept that classes are for specific things, "that class is for a specific thing" ceases to be a meaningful argument against adding it.


I don’t think it’s necessary to introduce new classes in later books. Across the whole lifespan of 5e, they only added one new class after releasing the Players Handbook.

5e released less splatbooks in its entire run than 3e released in a typical year. You can certainly have less content if that's what you want to do, but in a classed game "more classes" is absolutely a type of content you want.


I don’t see any reason that archetypes, subclasses, or whatever the game chooses to call them couldn’t add new and interesting mechanics to the original class.

At a certain point you are just adding "classes" but calling them "archetypes". In 3.5 terms, the Warlock and and the Binder both seem to fall under the same broad niche (perhaps "Occultist" would be a general term). But how much mechanical overlap are you really preserving by having "character with a collection of powers they can use at-will" and "character who prepares a small number of suites of abilities each day and can use individual abilities on a five-round recharge" be the same class? In what sense are a Warblade (who has powers he recharges by taking a turn off from using them) and a Psychic Warrior (who has a pool of points he burns through over the course of the day) the same just because they're both vaguely frontliners?


But I feel that the 3.5e Ninja and Scout should definitely have been ACFs for Rogue.

The Ninja, particularly as-printed, probably could've been (though if you make Ki more mechanically meaningful, or give the Rogue some non-Ki mechanics of its own, that gets dicier). But the Scout makes sense as its own class, because Skirmish is mechanically distinct from Sneak Attack in a way Sudden Strike is not, and that means the class wants different types of supporting abilities, and therefore different mechanics.


Some of those classes are meant to be hybrids between two existing classes. Like a ninja is a rogue/monk, swashbuckler is rogue/fighter, scout is rogue/ranger, etc.

If enough people want to play a particular hybrid, it deserves its own class. 3e adding the Duskblade was a good idea, even though it already had the Eldritch Knight (and the Spellsword, and the Rage Mage, and the Dragonslayer, and would eventually add the Knight Phantom, and some others I don't remember off hand). I would also say that the Swashbuckler has a niche beyond just Fighter/Rogue. "I'm a pirate" is a thing people want to say about their characters, having a class to support that specifically is good.


Anyway, the only real problem with my idea is if somebody wants to play a LN heavy armor character. Can't be a lawful barbarian, paladins have to be LG, so that leaves ranger to spend two feats on armor proficiency.

The solution to that is just to remove the alignment requirement from Paladin. The thing that defines Paladins is wearing heavy armor, having divine magic, and following a code. If that code happens to be the myopically law-focused code of the Skybreakers rather than the more moralistic one of the the traditional Paladin, that's fine. Having a separate "Blackguard" class genuinely is kind of silly, and that's the sort of thing that can be handled by archetypes or subclasses or ACFs or whatever you want to call them.

[paladinn]

Some have suggested renaming "fighter" as "soldier." Not all fighters fit the soldier mold. A "slayer" type (i.e. a neo-barbarian) is not a soldier. Neither is a knight really. Or a non-ranger archer. The term "fighter" is suitably broad enough to encompass a wide range of concepts. Would "warrior" be a better name? That was the name of the old 3.5 "generic" class which was pretty much identical.

The suggested "weapon tricks" remind me of both the old BECMI weapon mastery special effects and the new D&DOne version. They aren't bad at all. But if you bring them into the game, Every martial character is going to expect them.

The combat dominance idea is as much a historical homage. My rendition allows it against foes of 1/2 the fighter's HD (rounded down) for the same total number of attacks. This is different from both cleave and extra attacks, which don't depend on the foe's HD.

[gijoemike]

Combat dominance already mostly exists in the cleave and great cleave feats. Against low HD mooks the fighter would take them out in 1 hit anyway. With cleave and Great cleave the fighter gets an extra swing off larger enemies too. The only thing it may do is allow the fighter to attack again on a miss. Except they have multiple attacks for that too.

In pathfinder fighters NEED feats every level as pathfinder has some incredibly long feat chains. In PF I have found myself lacking on feats even after squeezing in multiple levels of fighter. Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Cleaving Finish, Great Cleaving Finish in PF. There are 2 extra feats in there that don't exist in 3.5. As a fighter take 1 fighting style chain, part of a defense feat chain, and a general chain and you are out of feats.


Also, fighter isn't a soldier at all. They don't get any military knowledge or tactics. A back ally thug, a boxer, a burly lumberjack weilding an axe can all easily be fighters. Fighter simply means "went to school of hard knocks" in the context of D&D. It is wildly generic.

[Eladrinblade]

Military knowledge and tactics isnt really represented in the rules. I would say "warrior" is the most appropriate name, regardless.

[Maat Mons]

Ah, I see, it’s the old false dichotomy, or as I like to call it the “no middle ground fallacy.” Some degree of specificity is necessary in class-based games, so my complaint of some classes being too specific is invalid. Because clearly, it’s an all or nothing issue.

Honestly, 3.5e put out some content that was a waste of the paper it was printed on. I’m glad “less is more” was taken to heart for 5e.

In a sense, yes, taking some of the things currently categorized as classes and reclassifying them as archetypes is just an issue of semantics and organizational structure. But cleaning up the game design without altering what’s achievable within the rules is the whole point.

I think there are two valid reasons for hybrid base classes. One is that players shouldn’t have to wait until mid levels for their concept to start functioning. (I’m looking at you, every gish PrC.) Another is that many multiclass combos just don’t work without a hybrid base class, hybrid PrC, or class-stacking feat.

Yes, Paladin really should have just been “Champion,” or some such.



I’d say the fact that Combat Dominance depends on enemy hit dice is a mark against it. I think you should be looking for ways to accomplish the same ends, Fighters being good against hordes of weak foes, without needing to bring anything so abstract as level or hit dice into the equation.

[RandomPeasant]

Some have suggested renaming "fighter" as "soldier." Not all fighters fit the soldier mold. A "slayer" type (i.e. a neo-barbarian) is not a soldier. Neither is a knight really. Or a non-ranger archer.

The first two characters you describe have classes associated with them ("Barbarian" and "Knight" or "Paladin"). The third is absolutely a soldier.


The term "fighter" is suitably broad enough to encompass a wide range of concepts.

The problem is not having a broad name. "Adventurer" includes every concept, that doesn't make it a better name than "Barbarian" or "Wizard" or "Rogue". Names need to be evocative, not broad. "Fighter" fails this test because it tells you nothing about a character in a game where everyone fights.


Military knowledge and tactics isnt really represented in the rules. I would say "warrior" is the most appropriate name, regardless.

It would be a Knowledge skill, probably History or Architecture and engineering. Or some class abilities, as the various spells spellcasters get are.


Ah, I see, it’s the old false dichotomy, or as I like to call it the “no middle ground fallacy.” Some degree of specificity is necessary in class-based games, so my complaint of some classes being too specific is invalid. Because clearly, it’s an all or nothing issue.

I mean, your explicit position is that we should start with a list of classes in the PHB and add no additional classes. You are not exactly staking out something that can be called a "middle ground" for yourself.

That said, I do think a maximalist position is pretty correct here. If someone wants to play a "Scout" rather than a "Rogue/Ranger with some [Nature] and [Military] feats", it seems to me that we should allow them to do so. Class is generally the first thing you tell people about your character, having it provide as much information as possible is good, and narrower classes support that for obvious reasons.


Honestly, 3.5e put out some content that was a waste of the paper it was printed on.

That's an issue of being bad at balancing, not an inherent problem with new content.


But cleaning up the game design without altering what’s achievable within the rules is the whole point.

I do not understand why you believe that having a Warblade "archetype" and a Psychic Warrior "archetype" is cleaner than having those things be classes. What do we gain by making that organizational change?


I’d say the fact that Combat Dominance depends on enemy hit dice is a mark against it. I think you should be looking for ways to accomplish the same ends, Fighters being good against hordes of weak foes, without needing to bring anything so abstract as level or hit dice into the equation.

Fighters are also typically built for melee, which is simply not very good at dealing with hordes of enemies for structural reasons. No matter how many attacks he gets, a medium character with a longsword cannot attack more than eight enemies at any given time.

[Maat Mons]

Small correction, my explicit position is that there’s nothing wrong with starting with a list of classes in the PHB and adding no additional classes. That’s slightly different from saying it’s what should be done. I also said, in that same post “I’m not actually wholly opposed to the addition of new classes later in an edition, supposing they’re quite different from the existing ones.” My position, which I suppose I could have done a better job of explaining, is that designers should be very reticent to add new classes. Any proposed new class should be held to a rather high bar, requiring that the same thing couldn’t reasonably be done as an archetype for an existing class. If the result is that no new classes ever wind up being added, that’s fine. If the result is that just a few new classes wind up being added, that’s fine too.

I feel that having everything in each category have similar conceptual breadth provides desirable consistency of design. So having all the classes be relatively broad and all the archetypes be relatively narrow creates greater cohesion in both categories, and looser coupling between the categories. High cohesion and loose coupling are what I was taught are the hallmarks of good design. If you disagree with that basic premise, I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on this.

That’s a good point regarding positioning dictating the maximum number of enemies killed in a round. Another issue is that, if the enemies notice the Fighter can kill eight of them in quick succession with the right positioning, they’ll be very disinclined to allow him to set up that positioning. Assuming Combat Dominance, or whatever similar mechanic is implemented, requires a full round action to use, the Fighter will have to start his turn surrounded by enemies to make use of it. He could move into a good position on his previous turn, but reasonably intelligent enemies aren’t going to stay put when they see what he’s planning.

[paladinn]

I found a homebrew 3e alternative fighter class called the Soldier. It has a lot of what I was looking for as far as "fighter" class features. It still gets combat feats at L1, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. It also get a +1 damage reduction at L5, 10, 15 and 20. Finally it gets an "Improvement" at L2, 6, 10, 14 and 18, which is an ASI for Str, Dex or Con.

I thought it had too many extra ASI's; but I know 5e's fighter gets extra ASI's at L6 and 14, so I'm keeping those. I'm giving the Damage Reduction at L3, 7, 11, 15 and 19, somewhat like the barbarian. I'm also borrowing Weapon Training from Pathfinder. It's kind of a combination of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, and grants a +1 to both attack and damage (to one weapon type, new or pre-selected). And I'm bringing in the Fighting Style feature from 5e/2e, and Combat Dominance from 1e/C&C.

So here's my "fighter" class; I'm calling it the Warrior:
L1 Fighting Style, Combat Dominance
L2 DR 1
L3
L4 Bonus Feat
L5
L6 ASI, Weapon Training
L7
L8 Bonus Feat
L9
L10 DR2
L11
L12 Bonus Feat
L13
L14 ASI, Weapon Training
L15
L16 Bonus Feat
L17
L18 DR3
L19
L20 Bonus Feat, Weapon Training

Impressions?

[NichG]

I found a homebrew 3e alternative fighter class called the Soldier. It has a lot of what I was looking for as far as "fighter" class features. It still gets combat feats at L1, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. It also get a +1 damage reduction at L5, 10, 15 and 20. Finally it gets an "Improvement" at L2, 6, 10, 14 and 18, which is an ASI for Str, Dex or Con.

I thought it had too many extra ASI's; but I know 5e's fighter gets extra ASI's at L6 and 14, so I'm keeping those. I'm giving the Damage Reduction at L3, 7, 11, 15 and 19, somewhat like the barbarian. I'm also borrowing Weapon Training from Pathfinder. It's kind of a combination of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, and grants a +1 to both attack and damage (to one weapon type, new or pre-selected). And I'm bringing in the Fighting Style feature from 5e/2e, and Combat Dominance from 1e/C&C.

So here's my "fighter" class; I'm calling it the Warrior:
L1 Fighting Style, Combat Dominance
L2 DR 1
L3
L4 Bonus Feat
L5
L6 ASI, Weapon Training
L7
L8 Bonus Feat
L9
L10 DR2
L11
L12 Bonus Feat
L13
L14 ASI, Weapon Training
L15
L16 Bonus Feat
L17
L18 DR3
L19
L20 Bonus Feat, Weapon Training

Impressions?

Practically speaking, the optimal thing to do with the ASIs will probably be + to hit and damage (since Dex has to go a very long way to catch up with just wearing heavy armor) which ends up being the same as the Weapon Trainings, so these will in practice be somewhat redundant with each-other. Similarly, DR is nice but its an axis the Barbarian is also playing in already. This seems less dippable than the basic Fighter (well, dipping for Fighting Style I guess would still be good?), but still the Bonus Feats seem to be the major reason why you would play this instead of a Barbarian (or even Barbarian/War Hulk if you just want huge numbers).

One thing that occurs to me which I hadn't thought of before is that giving distinct class abilities all the way up to Lv20 does mean that a base class is going to kind of exclude PrC options. Part of the reason that you basically always want to PrC a caster is that they get things which PrCs are often written to just 'continue as per the base class' but which let that base class be swapped around. So it might be good to have something like that where you can say 'any full BAB PrC advances this class feature as per the base class', and then basically end-load the generic stuff like bonus feats into the last ~12 levels of the base class. So e.g. if you don't find a PrC you want to do, or if you need a wider set of build resources to bring together prerequisites and the like, you can keep taking the base class levels, but the class design is such that it gives you growing features which will continue to develop even if you specialize into a PrC (but probably shouldn't work cross-base-class...)

[paladinn]

Practically speaking, the optimal thing to do with the ASIs will probably be + to hit and damage (since Dex has to go a very long way to catch up with just wearing heavy armor) which ends up being the same as the Weapon Trainings, so these will in practice be somewhat redundant with each-other. Similarly, DR is nice but its an axis the Barbarian is also playing in already. This seems less dippable than the basic Fighter (well, dipping for Fighting Style I guess would still be good?), but still the Bonus Feats seem to be the major reason why you would play this instead of a Barbarian (or even Barbarian/War Hulk if you just want huge numbers).

One thing that occurs to me which I hadn't thought of before is that giving distinct class abilities all the way up to Lv20 does mean that a base class is going to kind of exclude PrC options. Part of the reason that you basically always want to PrC a caster is that they get things which PrCs are often written to just 'continue as per the base class' but which let that base class be swapped around. So it might be good to have something like that where you can say 'any full BAB PrC advances this class feature as per the base class', and then basically end-load the generic stuff like bonus feats into the last ~12 levels of the base class. So e.g. if you don't find a PrC you want to do, or if you need a wider set of build resources to bring together prerequisites and the like, you can keep taking the base class levels, but the class design is such that it gives you growing features which will continue to develop even if you specialize into a PrC (but probably shouldn't work cross-base-class...)

Honestly I don't have the barbarian class in my game. "Barbarian" is a background, not a class. Raging should be more of a feat IMO.. or "berzerking." I want a fighter class that can work for Sir Gawain in plate armor or nearly-nekkid Conan or Legolas.

[NichG]

Honestly I don't have the barbarian class in my game. "Barbarian" is a background, not a class. Raging should be more of a feat IMO.. or "berzerking." I want a fighter class that can work for Sir Gawain in plate armor or nearly-nekkid Conan or Legolas.

With that sort of range, honestly just doing tons of bonus feats but making a lot of Fighter-only feats rather than 'feats that qualify for a Fighter bonus feat slot' might be best. Because the sorts of unique class abilities that suit Sir Gawain conceptually may end up being very out of place for Conan or Legolas. So if you want that kind of range, rather than a static set of options that everyone will have the same, if you want it to all be in one class you're going to need to have options where characters specialize as they grow to end up being as distinct as those characters are. And I think feats do actually do that. Removing feat taxes and obvious mandatory picks of course is necessary with this, so having e.g. automatic weapon focus/specialization advancement in addition to the bonus feats, and making the feat trees flatter, would be a good idea.

What about something like, starting at 5th level, Fighters may ignore one prerequisite of feats they pick for their bonus feats per 5 Fighter levels (with feat chains counting as multiple prerequisites); a Fighter can automatically retrain one of their bonus feats for free each time they level up.

[Prime32]

Honestly I don't have the barbarian class in my game. "Barbarian" is a background, not a class. Raging should be more of a feat IMO.. or "berzerking." I want a fighter class that can work for Sir Gawain in plate armor or nearly-nekkid Conan or Legolas.
So

Gawain: Charismatic, superhuman strength and toughness linked to the sun (being weakest at night and nigh-invincible at noon), a capable healer, has a magic sword and an amazing horse. Fights alongside other people with similar mystical abilities.
Legolas: Sniper and tracker with superhuman senses and the ability to befriend animals in a few words. Capable of moving quietly and swiftly, even across rough terrain, and can do so while sleepwalking in order to preserve stamina.
Conan: A man of many skills. A veteran commander with great knowledge of military strategy, and also a born leader who inspires courage in his allies and can direct them efficiently in battle. A talented thief with a quick wit. A skilled linguist who can be called upon as an interpreter or to decipher ancient scripts. Uses many types of armor, weaponry and fighting styles equally well, including his bare hands. Not superhumanly strong like Gawain, but a huge man who can withstand impossible amounts of punishment.


That's a paladin, a ranger, and a bard or a factotum or something (Song of the White Raven maybe?).

[Maat Mons]

Something to remember about the 5e Fighter and its ability score increases is that 5e mostly capped ability scores at 20. Since it wasn’t ever very hard to hit that cap, Fighter’s ability score increases wound up improving secondary or tertiary ability scores, making them more well-rounded. Directly porting these ability score increases back to 3e, you just wind up with everyone piling a bigger modifier onto their primary ability score, further cementing the Fighter’s status as a one-trick pony.

What do you mean by “to one weapon type, new or pre-selected?” Is this going to be like Ranger’s Favored Enemy, where you have the “choice” of having a big bonus in one category or a small bonus in several categories? Because that’s even less of a real choice for weapon groups than it is for creature types. At least with creature types, there’s some incentive to diversify, since the player isn’t in complete control of which ones come up. But for weapon groups, thr player can absolutely choose to always use a particular type of weapon. If you choose to always use a greatsword, and never deign to make any attacks with anything else, +5 to attack and damage with greatswords could just as well be +5 to attack and damage with all weapons.

I’d don’t really see why, mechanically, every Fighter should be forced to specialize in certain types of weapon. At least in Pathfinder, there are archetypes that trade Weapon Training for various other things, if it doesn’t suit your concept.

Getting DR 1 at level 2 is pretty great. Getting DR 3 at level 18 is pretty meh. I mean, your health pool has been multiplied by x9 between levels 2 and 18. So DR is a much smaller part of your defense than it used to be, even though your DR has ostensibly increased. I’d be tempted to follow a model like Pathfinder’s Invulnerable Rager Barbarian, which gives DR equal to half your Barbarian level. Or Pathfinder’s Armor Master Fighter, which gives DR 1, 2, or 3 (depending on what type of armor you’re wearing) at 5th level, and eventually ups it to DR 4, 8, or 12 at 19th level. Though I’d aim for a much more even progression than Armor Master Fighter gives.

[smetzger]

I went the opposite way w/ my homebrew fighter and made it super flexible and highly dependent on Feats...

Fighter

2 additional skill points for a total of 4/level
At 1st level choose any 2 additional skills to be class skills
Any Feat you qualify for can be taken as a Fighter bonus Feat
Weapon Mastery - Any Feat which applies to a specific weapon (e.g. Weapon Focus) can be retrained to a different weapon (that you are proficient in) after 1 hour of practice.
Feat Mastery - Upon gaining a Fighter level you can retrain any Feat you have for a different Feat that you qualify for. The Feat that you lose will not affect prerequisites for other Feats or Prestige Classes. For example: If you have Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack… you could trade out Mobility for Power Attack and you would not lose access to Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack.

[paladinn]

I went the opposite way w/ my homebrew fighter and made it super flexible and highly dependent on Feats...

Fighter

2 additional skill points for a total of 4/level
At 1st level choose any 2 additional skills to be class skills
Any Feat you qualify for can be taken as a Fighter bonus Feat
Weapon Mastery - Any Feat which applies to a specific weapon (e.g. Weapon Focus) can be retrained to a different weapon (that you are proficient in) after 1 hour of practice.
Feat Mastery - Upon gaining a Fighter level you can retrain any Feat you have for a different Feat that you qualify for. The Feat that you lose will not affect prerequisites for other Feats or Prestige Classes. For example: If you have Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack… you could trade out Mobility for Power Attack and you would not lose access to Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack.


Isn't the PHB Fighter already "highly dependent on feats"?

And I'm not against feats, btb. I just think there should be more to a class than that. One of my goals was to bring balance to the Force.

I read on another forum that one DM gives fighter a weapon-damage-upgrade, so that a weapon that does d4 damage does d6, etc. Is that OP? I'm also thinking to up the damage reduction feature to DR2, 4 and 6 instead of 1, 2 and 3.

[rel]

Alright, I think I'm getting an idea of what you're aiming for.
Here's a quick and dirty 3.5 compatible version of combat dominance:

Combat Dominance (Ex)
As a move action move up to your speed. As part of this move you may make a number of melee attacks equal to your BAB. These attacks use your full BAB and can only target creatures with total hit dice less than or equal to half the total levels you have in classes that do not advance spellcasting.
You cannot make more than 1 attack against the same creature.
You automatically know if a given creature is a valid target for Combat Dominance.

[paladinn]

Alright, I think I'm getting an idea of what you're aiming for.
Here's a quick and dirty 3.5 compatible version of combat dominance:

Combat Dominance (Ex)
As a move action move up to your speed. As part of this move you may make a number of melee attacks equal to your BAB. These attacks use your full BAB and can only target creatures with total hit dice less than or equal to half the total levels you have in classes that do not advance spellcasting.
You cannot make more than 1 attack against the same creature.
You automatically know if a given creature is a valid target for Combat Dominance.

I would actually limit this to 1/2 the fighter's level in number of attacks as well. Maybe roll once and have to apply it to all attacks. I don't want to bog down gameplay.

Another thing I'm considering is allowing "plain" fighters to increase their weapons' damage die by one step. So a d4 weapon becomes d6, d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d10, etc. Or is that OP?

[NichG]

Why not just something like, automatically kill BAB worth of creatures with max HP less than your Fighter level without needing an attack roll? Or, make a single attack roll for the entire maneuver?

[paladinn]

Why not just something like, automatically kill BAB worth of creatures with max HP less than your Fighter level without needing an attack roll? Or, make a single attack roll for the entire maneuver?

Like I said, "roll once and have it apply to all the attacks."

I'd still likely limit it to 1/2 the fighter level/ HD for the auto-kill.

[rel]

I would actually limit this to 1/2 the fighter's level in number of attacks as well. Maybe roll once and have to apply it to all attacks. I don't want to bog down gameplay.

If you want it to be fast in play I recommend a straight AOE. Roll your attack damage and apply it to everyone in this area. Reflex save for half.


Another thing I'm considering is allowing "plain" fighters to increase their weapons' damage die by one step. So a d4 weapon becomes d6, d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d10, etc. Or is that OP?

As to whether upgrading damage dice is OP, I don't personally think anything suggested on this thread has been in any way OP.

For comparison a stock PHB only druid shows up at level 1 with a wolf animal companion, which is an extra attack (+3, 1D6+1), a chance to flank (+2 to it's attack and the druids), 13 extra HP to soak damage and a chance to trip (-4 to hit, -4 AC and attacks of opportunity if they stand).

And that's just one class feature. Said druid also has full spellcasting, and wild empathy, and is still a warm body, only slightly less competent in combat than a level 1 fighter. And the druid also has better skills.

Minor boosts to hit and damage from things like fighting style or upgraded damage dice and the ability to pseudo cleave with combat dominance doesn't really compare.

[thatothersting]

It's nice to see that no matter how many years pass everyone still wants to fix the fighter. I've got a few suggestions I can throw out, but then, fighter fixes are as common as people who've played a fighter. Still, spitballing is always good, so, let's see...


Thought one: Dragon #310 introduced numerous variants, let a player pick a couple of them to overlay atop one another as sensibly as you can. So, for instance, the kensai gets a slowly scaling bonus for his chosen weapon and the exoticist gets to pick four exotic weapons he's proficient with, put them together and you have four weird weapons that you progressively improve with and access to several unique class features you can trade out your bonus feats for. Nice and simple, but dull.


Thought two: see the d20 SRD? In the class variants you'll find a sneak attack and "thug" variant fighter. Take their benefits, slap them on the baseline fighter, ignore that you're supposed to "trade" things for them, enjoy having 4 skill points per level and getting SOMETHING each time you level up. Straightforward, clean, and very good at killing. Players will be more happy to trade feats for the various fighter ACFs, and their prestige class options expand significantly.


Thought three: Complete Mage introduced reserve feats, fighters have dead levels starting at 3rd, give them a bonus reserve feat at each of those dead levels. Their effective spell level is equal to 1/2 of their fighter level, encouraging the player to stick with it. Not exactly straightforward but fairly functional and provides at least SOME out of combat utility (if the player chooses those options) while also varying the fighty man's damage types. Combine with "thug" for even better mileage.


Final idea: knight sucks, fighter sucks, put them together into one class and call it a day. The Dungeon Crasher ACF would fit a knight really well and honestly the extra feats would let you finally do some damage while the class features make you better with armor than anyone else. Personal favorite, probably a bit much, but it sounds fun and I might just let a player do it sometime.

Springboarding off of this, what about other bad classes? Soulknife, hexblade, both are garbage and would be better if you injected the fighter into them, right? So why not? Quasi gestalt, but only for the worst classes in the game, might be neat.


Anyway, that's my two cents. Mix and match the above as you please. These aren't balanced at all but they have a nice "feel" to them, you know?

[Remuko]

Thought three: Complete Mage introduced reserve feats, fighters have dead levels starting at 3rd, give them a bonus reserve feat at each of those dead levels. Their effective spell level is equal to 1/2 of their fighter level, encouraging the player to stick with it. Not exactly straightforward but fairly functional and provides at least SOME out of combat utility (if the player chooses those options) while also varying the fighty man's damage types. Combine with "thug" for even better mileage.

Reserve feats dont do anything if you dont have a particular spell of the correct type available to cast (prepared or via spontaneous spell slots) none of which fighters have? i dont think these do anything for fighters, but if they did it would have been a cool way to add a drop of magic to the fighter class.

[pabelfly]

Reserve feats dont do anything if you dont have a particular spell of the correct type available to cast (prepared or via spontaneous spell slots) none of which fighters have? i dont think these do anything for fighters, but if they did it would have been a cool way to add a drop of magic to the fighter class.

If you want to add magic or magic-like abilities to non-casters, I think this thread is a really good starting point:

https://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11381.0

[paladinn]

If you want to add magic or magic-like abilities to non-casters, I think this thread is a really good starting point:

https://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11381.0

That's what I Don't want.

Narrowing the gap between martials and casters shouldn't require becoming a caster.

[Darg]

Has anyone thought of expanding the prestigious character classes? The way they are set up allows for a flexible entry path which can increase build variety. For example you could go with fighter 4/cleric 1/paladin 15 for 3 bonus feats, extra fighter HD, and end up with access to 5th level spells. Or, you could go with fighter 1/cleric 4/paladin 15 instead to get up to 6th level spells and +3 caster levels. Either way it's a power upgrade over the regular paladin with more spells per day, access to a larger spell list, domains, and higher level spells. It's the same for all the prestigious character classes.

[pabelfly]

That's what I Don't want.

Narrowing the gap between martials and casters shouldn't require becoming a caster.

None of the suggestions given are casters. They're races, feats, templates, and prestige classes without spellcasting that grant various abilities like flight, teleportation, invisibility, see invisibility, shapechange, and so forth. If you want to play a mundane martial with extra abilities, it's a pretty good starting point.

[thatothersting]

Reserve feats dont do anything if you dont have a particular spell of the correct type available to cast (prepared or via spontaneous spell slots) none of which fighters have? i dont think these do anything for fighters, but if they did it would have been a cool way to add a drop of magic to the fighter class.

Friend...

...well, maybe I wasn't clear. The idea would be to treat the "effective available spell level" (which the feats run on, as you've mentioned here) as being equal to half of the class's level. Thus, at 10 the fighter's reserve feats would act as if they are all operating off of a level 5 spell, despite not having any actual spells to cast. This gives the class a small spark of magical oomph, mostly centered around combat and things which assist in combat (implicitly because while mister wizard is learning REAL magic, the fighter just wants to know how to make stuff dead that he otherwise can't (and also to fill in those empty spaces on his class features list, obviously).

Only mentioned because "fighter" is such a big fat ??? of a name that you can cram almost anything combat-related into it and say that it fits, of course, and also because the idea of the fighter being better at using his (very limited) magical parlor tricks at level 20 than an equally leveled wizard would be is kind of funny to me.

[Lord Foul]

It's not much good tbh, but here it is for reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20161031211837/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a
There's also the Zent fighter which had effects on odd levels

[Remuko]

Friend...

...well, maybe I wasn't clear. The idea would be to treat the "effective available spell level" (which the feats run on, as you've mentioned here) as being equal to half of the class's level. Thus, at 10 the fighter's reserve feats would act as if they are all operating off of a level 5 spell, despite not having any actual spells to cast. This gives the class a small spark of magical oomph, mostly centered around combat and things which assist in combat (implicitly because while mister wizard is learning REAL magic, the fighter just wants to know how to make stuff dead that he otherwise can't (and also to fill in those empty spaces on his class features list, obviously).

Only mentioned because "fighter" is such a big fat ??? of a name that you can cram almost anything combat-related into it and say that it fits, of course, and also because the idea of the fighter being better at using his (very limited) magical parlor tricks at level 20 than an equally leveled wizard would be is kind of funny to me.

ah okay i get it now. yeah that would be neat.