Fighter class features

[paladinn]

So I found a 3.5 fighter variant, the Soldier, that actually has class features and a (reduced) number of feats:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Soldier_(3.5e_Class)

I like the basic chassis of this.. it seems to be a good balance. The specifics, I'm not sure about. At L2 and every 4 levels, a soldier gets an "improvement" which is basically an ASI, limited to STR, DEX or CHA. At L5, 10, 15 and 20, s/he gets "damage prevention" (I assume reduction?). Then there are still bonus feats at L1, 4 and every 4 levels. The approach is very basic/simple, but still substantial. It reminds me a little of PF's approach where a fighter gets alternating weapon training, armor training and feats.

Is 5 extra ASI's OP? How about 4 DR? One of my 1st impressions was to replace Improvement with PF's weapon training, giving a +1 to hit and damage to one weapon, new or existing. This is like weapon focus+specialization, and would be unique to the soldier/fighter.

Any impressions?

[Biggus]

At L2 and every 4 levels, a soldier gets an "improvement" which is basically an ASI, limited to STR, DEX or CHA.

STR, DEX or CON (I'm guessing this was a typo)



At L5, 10, 15 and 20, s/he gets "damage prevention" (I assume reduction?).

The difference between damage prevention and reduction is that prevention applies to damage from all sources, not just physical attacks. Presumably this is meant to include magic and special abilities.



Is 5 extra ASI's OP? How about 4 DR?

I don't think these are overpowered. If anything I'd be inclined to beef up the damage prevention a bit at higher levels.



One of my 1st impressions was to replace Improvement with PF's weapon training, giving a +1 to hit and damage to one weapon, new or existing. This is like weapon focus+specialization, and would be unique to the soldier/fighter.

Any impressions?


It's not a bad class but I don't think it addresses some of the key Fighter weaknesses, such as vulnerability to magic which doesn't involve Fortitude saves, and poor mobility. Personally I'd be more inclined to import some features from PF and 5E, like Indomitable and Bravery. I do like damage prevention, I'd been considering allowing DR to work against magic in my own games.

I do agree the Fighter needs something which is uniquely theirs.

[Chronos]

Eh, the problem with fighters isn't that they just get feats. The problem is that feats are too weak. A feat should be as strong as two levels worth of features for a martial class, because that's what it is. And there should be so many good feats that every martial class would have at least 20 that they'd really want to take, so there'd be an incentive to take fighter levels to get that many.

[holbita]

I see it as an issue of our perspective being wrong.

Fighter doesn't have class features is not a bad thing. Fighter is a transition class that you take so you can have enough feats to get into your target prestige class or to make a specific multiclass character work.

You don't need the fighter to have class features, it's not required for their function.

There may be some fighter builds... double damage AoO, fear builds, dungeon crasher, etc. but those are oddities, fighter should be used to qualify, you will get class features in your targer prestige class.

[paladinn]

I see it as an issue of our perspective being wrong.

Fighter doesn't have class features is not a bad thing. Fighter is a transition class that you take so you can have enough feats to get into your target prestige class or to make a specific multiclass character work.

You don't need the fighter to have class features, it's not required for their function.

There may be some fighter builds... double damage AoO, fear builds, dungeon crasher, etc. but those are oddities, fighter should be used to qualify, you will get class features in your targer prestige class.

Completely disagree. Classes should be able to stand on their own without any presumption of multiclassing or PrC. I seriously doubt that WotC had this in mind when they designed the 3e fighter. It was more like making the fighter the "feat-version" of the rogue. Rogues are skill-monkeys; fighters were "feat-monkeys." The problem is, even rogues have actual class-abilities outside skills.

I like much of what was done with PF1 re: the fighter. "Weapon training" is like 2 feats in one. And I like the 3.5 Soldier class' DR/DP ability.

So combining things from PF, 3.5, C&C and 5e, here's what I have:

L1: Either 5e fighting style or +2 to all attack roles (deciding)
5e Second Wind - once/day, you can regain 1d10+fighter lvl hp.
2: C&C Combat Dominance, i.e. the "mook rule" - multi attacks on groups of enemies < 1/2 the fighter's HD
3: Damage Reduction 1
4: Bonus Feat
5. PF Weapon Training - +1 to hit and damage with one weapon
6. Extra ASI ala 5e
7. DR2
8. Bonus Feat
9. Weapon Training - +1 for one new weapon or one previous
10. C&C Martial Prominence - trade BAB for AC or damage on a given round
11. DR3
12. Bonus Feat
13. Weapon Training +1 for new or previous
14. Bonus Feat, extra ASI
15. DR4
16. Bonus Feat
17. Weapon Training +1
18. Bonus Feat
5e Second Wind - 2/day
19. DR5
20. Bonus Feat
Weapon Training +1

IMO this does several things. It still keeps the fighter simple and focused on the mission. It allows for a fair selection of class abilities that are pretty unique (other classes can have, but only with multiple feats). And it keeps the fighter's status as the "feat-monkey."

Impressions?

[Ignimortis]

Eh, the problem with fighters isn't that they just get feats. The problem is that feats are too weak. A feat should be as strong as two levels worth of features for a martial class, because that's what it is. And there should be so many good feats that every martial class would have at least 20 that they'd really want to take, so there'd be an incentive to take fighter levels to get that many.

If we actually take the idea that classes are supposed to be "balanced", then... Fighter getting an extra feat every two levels is supposed to put them somewhere on par with a Cleric getting access to their whole spell list and slightly worse numbers overall. So a single feat should be equivalent to getting a whole spell level and slots to cast it with. Frankly, I'm not sure what that kind of feat is supposed to look like - but it is certainly NOT Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization or Cleave.

[Morphic tide]

If we actually take the idea that classes are supposed to be "balanced", then... Fighter getting an extra feat every two levels is supposed to put them somewhere on par with a Cleric getting access to their whole spell list and slightly worse numbers overall. So a single feat should be equivalent to getting a whole spell level and slots to cast it with. Frankly, I'm not sure what that kind of feat is supposed to look like - but it is certainly NOT Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization or Cleave.
The nature of how the list works pegs more to Sorcerers than Clerics, Druids, or Wizards, as it's a largely static choice. And the underlying balance problem is more WotC crippling or outright removing most of the limits on spellcasting, making non-magical melee fail to be a worthwhile niche because the Cleric's self-buffing is more than enough. Self-buffs that accrued specifically to try to bribe players into actually filling the important healing niche.

[Remuko]

And I like the 3.5 Soldier class' DR/DP ability.

whats the source on this? i know d20 modern has some sort of soldier class, but the only 3.5 soldier ive seen is someone the other day linking to such a class from the wiki that was homebrew... I dont know of such a class existing natively in 3.5

[paladinn]

whats the source on this? i know d20 modern has some sort of soldier class, but the only 3.5 soldier ive seen is someone the other day linking to such a class from the wiki that was homebrew... I dont know of such a class existing natively in 3.5

Sorry.. it is homebrew, but pretty good:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Soldier_(3.5e_Class)

[ngilop]

The issue with the fighter isn't that they don't have big numbers or cannot deal damage.

It is other than targeting the opponent's AC and HP, there is next to nothing a fighter can do (of course trip, disarm etc etc)

There is not really a way for the fighter to affect any of the three saves, or put status conditions on opponents.

Why can't the fighter do a war shout and daze his enemy, why can't one hit her opponent so hard it becomes confused?

Plus, every fighter is the same thing over and over.. just with different weapon involved.

compare to the wizard who can literally change out what one is capable of doing on a daily basis.

I feel, a decent fighter should be capable of doing a lot more than just stab something to death. https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It

The best fighter fixes i have seen have allowed the fighter a bit of role diversification or specialization.
Mine: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?318268-My-Latest-big-project!-(-a-big-deal-fighter-fix)
Jiriku's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?194834-3-5-Fighter-Remix-Doin-it-old-school
Grod's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?242782-The-Legend-(sort-of-a-fighter-fix-sort-of-a-warlock-3-5-PEACH-WIP)
Grods+Zeigander's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!
Zeigander's: 1- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?218637-Yet-Another-Fighter-Rewrite-3-5-Base-Class-PEACH
2- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?201146-Fighter-Remix-Reloaded-3-5-Legend-Ready-to-Play
Nonsi's and Grod's:https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?277935-Warrior-II-nonsi-meets-Grod_The_Giant-(PEACH)&p=14982442&viewfull=1#post14982442
wayfare's: 1- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?242689-The-Fighter-(Now-Oddly-Similar-to-the-Binder!)-PEACHING-NEEDED!
2- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?306924-The-Fighter-War-War-Never-Changes
neoseraphi's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?209757-Boosting-the-Fighter-(3-5-Core-PEACH)

The above all have something, most things, everything, that make, what i feel, puts a fighter in good grace of being able to be a legendary hero. They have a combination of things to do besides smack things with a stick to death and some sort of speciliazation.

take a look to see if any of them you like or if any of the abilities you feel are nice.

again.. read zeigander's fighter thesis.

[paladinn]

The issue with the fighter isn't that they don't have big numbers or cannot deal damage.

It is other than targeting the opponent's AC and HP, there is next to nothing a fighter can do (of course trip, disarm etc etc)

There is not really a way for the fighter to affect any of the three saves, or put status conditions on opponents.

Why can't the fighter do a war shout and daze his enemy, why can't one hit her opponent so hard it becomes confused?

Plus, every fighter is the same thing over and over.. just with different weapon involved.

compare to the wizard who can literally change out what one is capable of doing on a daily basis.

I feel, a decent fighter should be capable of doing a lot more than just stab something to death. https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It

The best fighter fixes i have seen have allowed the fighter a bit of role diversification or specialization.
Mine: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?318268-My-Latest-big-project!-(-a-big-deal-fighter-fix)
Jiriku's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?194834-3-5-Fighter-Remix-Doin-it-old-school
Grod's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?242782-The-Legend-(sort-of-a-fighter-fix-sort-of-a-warlock-3-5-PEACH-WIP)
Grods+Zeigander's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!
Zeigander's: 1- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?218637-Yet-Another-Fighter-Rewrite-3-5-Base-Class-PEACH
2- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?201146-Fighter-Remix-Reloaded-3-5-Legend-Ready-to-Play
Nonsi's and Grod's:https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?277935-Warrior-II-nonsi-meets-Grod_The_Giant-(PEACH)&p=14982442&viewfull=1#post14982442
wayfare's: 1- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?242689-The-Fighter-(Now-Oddly-Similar-to-the-Binder!)-PEACHING-NEEDED!
2- https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?306924-The-Fighter-War-War-Never-Changes
neoseraphi's: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?209757-Boosting-the-Fighter-(3-5-Core-PEACH)

The above all have something, most things, everything, that make, what i feel, puts a fighter in good grace of being able to be a legendary hero. They have a combination of things to do besides smack things with a stick to death and some sort of speciliazation.

take a look to see if any of them you like or if any of the abilities you feel are nice.

again.. read zeigander's fighter thesis.

Nearly every "fix" I've read for the fighter class amounts to "Let's give it features from the rogue, or monk, or barbarian. Heck, lets just give it spells and call it a day!" That seems to be the direction of the Tome of Battle, etc.: give the fighter spells disguised as non-spells. That's what was tried in 4e too.

I want to maintain the simplicity of the fighter class, hopefully buff it in some important ways, and make it more than just a bag of feats. I think I'm close to that in what I presented, even if I'm still tweaking. I'm not interested in superiority dice or wuxia. I don't want the "broken wind flows down the mountain" technique. I want a fighter that fights well and hits hard. And the "dumb fighter" is an unfortunate stereotype. A character ultimately is as smart as its player.

[martixy]

PF Fighter exists btw. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/)

[paladinn]

PF Fighter exists btw. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/)

And I quoted them as one of my inspirations

[Pinkie Pyro]

Nearly every "fix" I've read for the fighter class amounts to "Let's give it features from the rogue, or monk, or barbarian. Heck, lets just give it spells and call it a day!" That seems to be the direction of the Tome of Battle, etc.: give the fighter spells disguised as non-spells. That's what was tried in 4e too.

I want to maintain the simplicity of the fighter class, hopefully buff it in some important ways, and make it more than just a bag of feats. I think I'm close to that in what I presented, even if I'm still tweaking. I'm not interested in superiority dice or wuxia. I don't want the "broken wind flows down the mountain" technique. I want a fighter that fights well and hits hard. And the "dumb fighter" is an unfortunate stereotype. A character ultimately is as smart as its player.

And all you're going to end up with is 'I roll to hit'.

special abilities are what make characters, and that applies to fighters well. You want good mundane fighters? you need a system designed around them. DnD abstracts the basics to the point that a mundane fighter doesn't have anything that makes it special.

Expand on the basics. Make choice of non-magical equipment matter more, make the CMB maneuvers matter more, lean heavily into fights where those mechanics will matter (IE: against other humanoid opponents)...

Make it so that the flow of combat matters more. below half HP? less than 20%? penalties that apply to both the party and enemies. Morale rolls for the enemy when their allies die. Fight taking too long? fatigue sets in.

And stick to E6 (epic 6, not 6th edition) so those mechanics stay at least semi-relevant.

I've been consistently disappointed with how martials work in the decade+ I've been playing, but DnD just isn't built for the core mechanics to be meaningfully interesting. it's all about the things that go above and beyond them.

[ngilop]

Nearly every "fix" I've read for the fighter class amounts to "Let's give it features from the rogue, or monk, or barbarian. Heck, lets just give it spells and call it a day!" That seems to be the direction of the Tome of Battle, etc.: give the fighter spells disguised as non-spells. That's what was tried in 4e too.

I want to maintain the simplicity of the fighter class, hopefully buff it in some important ways, and make it more than just a bag of feats. I think I'm close to that in what I presented, even if I'm still tweaking. I'm not interested in superiority dice or wuxia. I don't want the "broken wind flows down the mountain" technique. I want a fighter that fights well and hits hard. And the "dumb fighter" is an unfortunate stereotype. A character ultimately is as smart as its player.

This, I am unable to comprehend.

You want a fighter to be more than a sack of feats. you want to buff it but you feel that any buff to the fighter other than 'give big numbars!! is giving it spells with a different name?


The fighter literally has ZERO issue CORE being an amazing combatant. The fighter needs to be able to do something other than get big stick and hit the opponent in the face rinse and repeat for eternity.

Just because the big, dumb, fighter is a think doesn't mean that you have to make the fighter only be as strong as he is stupid.

A high level figher should be doign mythic actions. Heracles sundered a dang mountain, Indrajit fought a deity for 3 days, Beowulf tore grendle's arm off and beat him to death with it. That is the kind of stuff a high level fighter should be capable of doing when your wizard and cleric buddies are literally re-writing the rules of existence multiple times per day,.

[JNAProductions]

What do you feel is bad about the Fighter? What areas are they lacking in?
And do you feel DR and better physical stats will fix/help them?

Edit: Grod The Giant did a pretty cool Fighter rework (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!). Might be worth mining for ideas.

[liquidformat]

Nearly every "fix" I've read for the fighter class amounts to "Let's give it features from the rogue, or monk, or barbarian. Heck, lets just give it spells and call it a day!" That seems to be the direction of the Tome of Battle, etc.: give the fighter spells disguised as non-spells. That's what was tried in 4e too.

I want to maintain the simplicity of the fighter class, hopefully buff it in some important ways, and make it more than just a bag of feats. I think I'm close to that in what I presented, even if I'm still tweaking. I'm not interested in superiority dice or wuxia. I don't want the "broken wind flows down the mountain" technique. I want a fighter that fights well and hits hard. And the "dumb fighter" is an unfortunate stereotype. A character ultimately is as smart as its player.

The fighter simply highlights how much feats suck for mundane characters. The fact that I need horrible feat chains like two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting to fight with two weapons; that you have terrible feat taxes like weapon focus; all of these are the real issue with the Fighter as written. An obvious but hard way to fix fighters is to fix feats, if you have actual powerful feat chains that give you powerful benefits like blindsight, debuffs, and crowd control you can solve the issues fighters have without touching the class. I have been working on revamping feats for quite a while you can checkout my updated feats (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pFwSVo331SLpKZRV_1utDb_IBKt4lwNtXlPgEgpjX8w/edit?usp=sharing) if you would like.

[paladinn]

So basically, everyone here wants a fighter to be better any anything But fighting.

Ever since 0e, the fighter has been the simplest but one of the most popular classes. Simplicity is not a bad thing. The mods that I (or Paizo, or..) made to the class are to add a little power with not much more complexity. Skills and such are still a thing. So are feats. Those are where the flavor comes in.

Anyway, thanks for the input. I'll keep working on my fighter class; y'all keep working on.. whatever it is.

[Ignimortis]

So basically, everyone here wants a fighter to be better any anything But fighting.

Ever since 0e, the fighter has been the simplest but one of the most popular classes. Simplicity is not a bad thing. The mods that I (or Paizo, or..) made to the class are to add a little power with not much more complexity. Skills and such are still a thing. So are feats. Those are where the flavor comes in.

Anyway, thanks for the input. I'll keep working on my fighter class; y'all keep working on.. whatever it is.

Because a Fighter is already good at fighting, if it can actually get to the fight in question. The issue with Fighter is that 1) once the fighting stops, it can't do much of anything at all 2) getting to the fight eventually becomes a problem for it, because the enemies actually get powers, and Fighter doesn't. Most of the MM below CR10 is a perfectly valid opponent for a similarly levelled Fighter, the Fighter can run up to those enemies and attack them to death and it'll be quite good at it. But take a look at a CR20 dragon, or a high-CR devil/demon, or whatever over CR13 or CR14 that isn't a straightforward brute, and you'll see that the Fighter can't really do anything to them unless those enemies CHOOSE to stay there and duke it out with the guy whose only real power is still making to-hit rolls to deal damage, probably primarily in melee range, too - instead of suing any other strategy that would favour them much more.

This is why Paizo's PF1e mods to the Fighter are mostly not that meaningful unless you create a hardcore mish-mash of archetypes that basically trade half of Fighter's features for actual powers and abilities. That's also why Paizo's PF2e is such a romp for Fighters - suddenly everything lost powers that require hard counters, and all combat is now won by having better to-hit and damage, and Fighters actually have that in spades.


The nature of how the list works pegs more to Sorcerers than Clerics, Druids, or Wizards, as it's a largely static choice. And the underlying balance problem is more WotC crippling or outright removing most of the limits on spellcasting, making non-magical melee fail to be a worthwhile niche because the Cleric's self-buffing is more than enough. Self-buffs that accrued specifically to try to bribe players into actually filling the important healing niche.
Considering that Sorcerer is the red-headed stepchild of fullcasters in 3e, and they're still a noticeable magnitude above Fighters in capability given somewhat intelligent spell choices, that says a lot. Also, even Sorcerers learn more spells than Fighters have extra feats, rather quickly. So does that mean that an average Fighter feat should be roughly more powerful than an average Sorc/Wiz spell of similar level? Because I just don't know what a level 8 Fighter feat would look like to contend with Polymorph or Dimension Door. Heck, I'm not sure if Whirlwind Attack is on par with Fireball (without specific builds like Spiked Chain+a source of Enlarge Person), and we all know how much damage spells suck in 3e.

[Maat Mons]

So basically, everyone here wants a fighter to be better any anything But fighting.

Well, you aren’t going to fix the issue of Fighter being a one-trick pony by making it better at its one trick.



Anyway, looking at the specific tweaks you’ve put forward, here are my thoughts.

Ability score increases sound fine. I mean, Druid gets Str 39 and Con 23 for free from Dire Polar Bear on top of being a full caster. You may as well let the classes that are actually 100% focused on physical excellence have their own unique sources of ability score boosts. The only problem I can see is making Barbarian obsolete. But that’s really a problem with Barbarian being just a bag of numbers, best addressed by a Barbarian fix.

DR 5/- is simultaneously not that impressive at 20th level, and also enough to make Barbarians feel they’re being replaced. It says a lot about Barbarian that both those things can be true at the same time. Anyway, I like Pathfinder’s Indestructible Rager Barbarian and Armor Master Fighter at 20th level. Indestructible Rager 20 gets DR 10/- under all circumstances. Armor Master 20 gets DR 12/- when wearing heavy armor, DR 8/- when wearing medium armor, and DR 4/- when wearing light armor. It gives both classes substantial DR while preserving different niches for the two classes, yet still doesn’t pigeon-hole either of them.

So, you want to set up a situation where a 20th-level Fighter can either have +5 attack and damage with one weapon, or +1 attack and damage with five weapons? That second one seems like a trap. If you’re going to give a choice between being a weapon specialist and a weapon generalist, don’t make one of them clearly worse.

Fighter being a feat monkey is really at odds with it being a simple and beginner-friendly class. For example, Pathfinder has 810 feats tagged as “Combat,” which are the ones Fighters can take with their bonus feats. People who want a simple, beginner-friendly class don’t want to read a list of 810 options, weigh how good each one is, and then consider possible synergies between them.

Combat Dominance is a bad mechanic. A player shouldn’t have to know abstract qualities of enemies like their number of HD. These metagame concepts especially shouldn’t play into decisions the character is making. The whole point of Combat Dominance is to make the character better at mopping up hordes of weak enemies, without providing a benefit against a single strong enemy. Just give Whirlwind Attack for free at 6th level. This creates a decision for which the best option differs by circumstance but doesn’t introduce a mechanic that arbitrarily fails against some enemies for reasons the character couldn’t possibly predict. I might also suggest making Whirlwind a standard action at level 11 and letting a 16th-level Fighter move their speed and make one attack against every enemy who comes within reach as a full-round action.

[Chronos]

Quoth Ignimortis:

If we actually take the idea that classes are supposed to be "balanced", then... Fighter getting an extra feat every two levels is supposed to put them somewhere on par with a Cleric getting access to their whole spell list and slightly worse numbers overall.
Trying to balance fighters with full spellcasters is, I think, a fool's errand, and isn't going to happen without a complete overhaul of the entire system. But trying to balance them with the other martial classes should be doable.

[ngilop]

So basically, everyone here wants a fighter to be better any anything But fighting.


Incorrect.

Everybody here wants the fighter to be able to do more than just fight. Furthermore, to be able to do more in combat that hi things with a stick.

Why you think the fighter needs help to be better at combat when the Fighter is already top tier at hitting things until they are dead is redundant. Making a Fighter have 20 more base attack than core don't matter when [ast level 12-ish the fighter only cares about not rolling a 1. Likewise, what's another 100 damage for the fighter per attack when he already overkills CR appropriate enemies with a full attack?


Wanting the fighter to do more within its role isn't missing the point of the fighter. The fighter is supposed to be a myriad of things, warrior, commander, champion, etc etc. Giving a couple abilities to help round out that role is not ruining the core of what a fighter is.


Again the fighter is already great at fighting, and absolutely does not need anything more in that regard. Give the fighter something else that fits within the cliches of the role of powerful warrior.

[Prime32]

Nearly every "fix" I've read for the fighter class amounts to "Let's give it features from the rogue, or monk, or barbarian. Heck, lets just give it spells and call it a day!" That seems to be the direction of the Tome of Battle, etc.: give the fighter spells disguised as non-spells. That's what was tried in 4e too.

I want to maintain the simplicity of the fighter class, hopefully buff it in some important ways, and make it more than just a bag of feats. I think I'm close to that in what I presented, even if I'm still tweaking. I'm not interested in superiority dice or wuxia. I don't want the "broken wind flows down the mountain" technique. I want a fighter that fights well and hits hard. And the "dumb fighter" is an unfortunate stereotype. A character ultimately is as smart as its player.Leaving complexity aside for a moment...

The monk is supposed to be D&D's wuxia class. And if there's one thing it does from wuxia it's "this technique is so powerful that it can only be used a limited number of times per day". I.e. the Vancian spellcasting mechanic. That was a common mechanic early in 3e - the barbarian, dwarven defender, etc. had similar 1/day and 1/encounter restrictions.

ToB was a product of 4e development, but it was scrapped for a reason. Because 4e doubled down on these wuxia-isms while ToB moved away from them. Yes, you heard me. Naming your techniques isn't a wuxia thing or even an Asian thing; it's necessary jargon when teaching someone how to fight. If you studied swordplay in Medieval Europe you'd hear things like "Enter the Horse Stance and perform the Dragon's Tail Sweep, but beware that your form can easily be broken by a Murder Blow". A trained knight would first master hand-to-hand and grappling, then progress to increasingly larger swords, and would frequently use their sword hilt as a bludgeoning weapon; "only Asians know how to punch" is just D&D weirdness.

Swordsage has wuxia-isms because it was a concept for the 4e Monk... and it also has the least interaction with ToB's signature mechanic out of all three classes. That mechanic being "refresh".

A ToB characater does not have a well of power that he draws on to fuel his maneuvers, like a wizard or a monk or a barbarian does. Rather he can get overextended if he fights too aggressively, requiring a moment to gather himself. Because in a real fight - even in a videogame - you can't spam the same move over and over. Warblade is the neo-Fighter/Barbarian, so his maneuvers are things like Cleave and Improved Disarm equivalents, he has a stance that replicates Power Attack, and he just needs to hit the opponent to get some breathing room; Crusader is neo-Knight/Paladin, so he gets burst damage maneuvers and lockdown stances, and can stay balanced as long as he just follows his instincts and takes opportunities as they pop up; Swordsage is the neo-Monk/Ninja nicknamed "blade wizard", so he gets all the crazy hadoukens and death touches but spends so much time meditating that he has barely any idea how to handle himself when a fight goes sour.


So if you don't want to model that kind of thing... then do you have any fictional characters from non-D&D media who you'd use as a model for what you think a fighter should feel like? Including high-level examples.

[paladinn]

Leaving complexity aside for a moment...

The monk is supposed to be D&D's wuxia class. And if there's one thing it does from wuxia it's "this technique is so powerful that it can only be used a limited number of times per day". I.e. the Vancian spellcasting mechanic. That was a common mechanic early in 3e - the barbarian, dwarven defender, etc. had similar 1/day and 1/encounter restrictions.

ToB was a product of 4e development, but it was scrapped for a reason. Because 4e doubled down on these wuxia-isms while ToB moved away from them. Yes, you heard me. Naming your techniques isn't a wuxia thing or even an Asian thing; it's necessary jargon when teaching someone how to fight. If you studied swordplay in Medieval Europe you'd hear things like "Enter the Horse Stance and perform the Dragon's Tail Sweep, but beware that your form can easily be broken by a Murder Blow". A trained knight would first master hand-to-hand and grappling, then progress to increasingly larger swords, and would frequently use their sword hilt as a bludgeoning weapon; "only Asians know how to punch" is just D&D weirdness.

Swordsage has wuxia-isms because it was a concept for the 4e Monk... and it also has the least interaction with ToB's signature mechanic out of all three classes. That mechanic being "refresh".

A ToB characater does not have a well of power that he draws on to fuel his maneuvers, like a wizard or a monk or a barbarian does. Rather he can get overextended if he fights too aggressively, requiring a moment to gather himself. Because in a real fight - even in a videogame - you can't spam the same move over and over. Warblade is the neo-Fighter/Barbarian, so his maneuvers are things like Cleave and Improved Disarm equivalents, he has a stance that replicates Power Attack, and he just needs to hit the opponent to get some breathing room; Crusader is neo-Knight/Paladin, so he gets burst damage maneuvers and lockdown stances, and can stay balanced as long as he just follows his instincts and takes opportunities as they pop up; Swordsage is the neo-Monk/Ninja nicknamed "blade wizard", so he gets all the crazy hadoukens and death touches but spends so much time meditating that he has barely any idea how to handle himself when a fight goes sour.


So if you don't want to model that kind of thing... then do you have any fictional characters from non-D&D media who you'd use as a model for what you think a fighter should feel like? Including high-level examples.

I'm thinking notables like Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Thorin, Lancelot, Galahad, etc. I know that some are considered as paladins or rangers; but most of them never had supernatural powers, really, and they should be able to be modeled as fighters.

If I wanted to lean into a more tactical thing, I'd pick the 5e battlemaster. It's more complex but not That much more.

[JNAProductions]

I'm thinking notables like Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Thorin, Lancelot, Galahad, etc. I know that some are considered as paladins or rangers; but most of them never had supernatural powers, really, and they should be able to be modeled as fighters.

If I wanted to lean into a more tactical thing, I'd pick the 5e battlemaster. It's more complex but not That much more.

Why does "Fighter with less feats, but more physical stats and some DR," better model Aragorn? Or Legolas? Or any of the others?

[paladinn]

Why does "Fighter with less feats, but more physical stats and some DR," better model Aragorn? Or Legolas? Or any of the others?

I wasn't asked for examples to model My ideas of a fighter class. But at the same time, I'm like a fighter class that's "generic" enough that any of those could fit with minimal effort.

Simplicity..

[JNAProductions]

I wasn't asked for examples to model My ideas of a fighter class. But at the same time, I'm like a fighter class that's "generic" enough that any of those could fit with minimal effort.

Simplicity..

Then what do you feel the Fighter currently lacks that Aragorn has?

The Grod Fighter I posted earlier is something I like, because it doesn't pigeonhole you. As written, a Fighter is encouraged to go absolutely ham on one tactic-Power Attacking, Tripping, TWF, whatever. But they can't adapt well to changing circumstances.

[Prime32]

I'm thinking notables like Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Thorin, Lancelot, Galahad, etc. I know that some are considered as paladins or rangers; but most of them never had supernatural powers, really, and they should be able to be modeled as fighters.

If I wanted to lean into a more tactical thing, I'd pick the 5e battlemaster. It's more complex but not That much more.
Well, Aragorn has survival skills and some kind of healing talent connected to his status as royalty, on top of a fancy sword. Also capable of duelling wills with Sauron.
Legolas has a bunch of mobility, sensory and animal-taming abillities; they're connected to him being an elf, but it's more dramatic than what D&D elves get.
Thorin had a magic sword that detects orcs/goblins and is good at killing them. IIRC he casts some kind of protective charm at some point, but it's implied to be a sort of weak folk magic known by many people of Middle-Earth (I think Bilbo casts one too).
Lancelot flew into berserk rages where his eyes seemed to glow red, and had a patron in his backstory who provided him with many powerful magic items including a ring that could dispel any enchantment.

Looking at common traits between these characters...

They're of noble birth, high social status. Contrast with wizards being hermit scholars, and rogues being street rats. D&D fighters lack skills like Kn(history) and Kn(royalty and nobility) which such a character would be expected to have; you could even make them Fighter-exclusive on the grounds that Wizards studying natural phenomena doesn't make them knowledgeable on politics. Depending on the setting, noble blood might have other special qualities (e.g. dragons can sense you have dragon blood and will regard you as a peer).
They have a destiny, a grand quest which they're sworn to. People know of them wherever they go, or at least know of what they quest for. Exactly how to implement "destiny" is vague; it might be extra Action Points in a campaign that uses them, or bonuses when doing things specifically related to their destiny. Other more narrative RPGs might let a player expend some resource to retcon NPCs into being loyalists to their cause, though in D&D the most you're going to get is Leadership (which they did have in earlier editions) or a bonus on Diplomacy checks or something.
They've got better gear than their fellows, which might be connected to them personally. Start them off with heirloom equipment; give them a reason to keep using their grandfather's sword for their whole career.

[Prime32]

So this is reminding me of a book series called The Faraway Paladin. The titular paladin is a boy named Will who was found in a ruin by a trio of unusually lucid undead - the remains of a legendary adventuring party bound to the site by an ancient oath - who decide to raise him as their own child.

The Priestess teaches Will about his relationship with the gods. When people in this land come of age, they devote themselves to a single patron god and receive a blessing in proportion to their oath. Will makes a mighty oath to the lantern-bearing goddess of souls, promising to be a beacon of light in the darkness for all people, and to grant rest and relief to the spirits of the dead. He spends the rest of the story as a deeply religious man and ordained priest of his faith, and is extra-effective against undead both in and out of combat.

The Wizard teaches Will that magic is dangerous, and should only be used for things he can't do with his own two hands. For this reason he recommends against flashy attack spells, suggesting instead using magic for things like battlefield control or increasing his running speed. He also emphasises the value of money, saying that it allows you to do things on a larger scale than you could otherwise.

The Fighter... spits on "techniques", instead focusing on building up Will's muscle mass and reaction time, having him experience combat in as many different situations as possible (different equipment, different environment, different enemies, etc.). His argument is that highly-technical fighting styles are effective but situational - you get the wrong footing, or you lose the weapon you're best with, and suddenly you're helpless. But your muscles can never be taken away from you - if you've got brawn, then you'll always have options open. Shove the enemy back or choke them out or whatnot. "If you get ripped, you can solve just about anything by force". He also gives Will a magic sword that makes its wielder nigh-unkillable by absorbing the vitality of their foes, but cautions him to only draw it in emergencies lest he get drunk on its power and forget how to fight properly (which is how he defeated the sword's original owner).


And the thing is... the fighting techniques he's talking about would be feats in D&D terms. But while he eschews feats because it's safer and more consistent... in D&D 3.x that makes you less safe and less consistent, since everything provokes AoOs without specific training. So if you want a simpler fighter, I'd say first simplify the rules for combat maneuvers to remove the AoOs.

[paladinn]

Ok, I took another look at the 5e Battlemaster subclass. I'm still not crazy about some of the maneuvers; but some actually look kind of interesting. So taking my previous write-up, it seems like the 5 DR increases could be replaced with BM maneuvers. Which gets us here:

L3 - 3 maneuvers, 4d8 Superiority dice
L6 - 2 more maneuvers, 5d8 SD
L10 - 2 more maneuvers, 5d10
L15 - 2 maneuvers, 6d10
L18 - 6d12 SD

Same maneuvers as in 5e.

Is it OP? It's a little more complex than the "basic" build, and doesn't have the defensive ability.

Thoughts?

[Ignimortis]

Ok, I took another look at the 5e Battlemaster subclass. I'm still not crazy about some of the maneuvers; but some actually look kind of interesting. So taking my previous write-up, it seems like the 5 DR increases could be replaced with BM maneuvers. Which gets us here:

L3 - 3 maneuvers, 4d8 Superiority dice
L6 - 2 more maneuvers, 5d8 SD
L10 - 2 more maneuvers, 5d10
L15 - 2 maneuvers, 6d10
L18 - 6d12 SD

Same maneuvers as in 5e.

Is it OP? It's a little more complex than the "basic" build, and doesn't have the defensive ability.

Thoughts?
5e maneuvers are very low-power for 3.5, even moreso than they are in 5e. Consider that, say, Precision Attack is far less important, because in 3.5, you get to hit with most of your attacks on a roll of 2 to 5, and the only use for it would be Power Attack fodder. Getting a 1d8 bonus to your attack roll just to dump it on PA and get a 1d8*2 damage bonus is...not interesting.

Any combat maneuver maneuvers (pardon the tautology) would also be rather terrible, since 3.5 wants you to invest quite a bit into a specific maneuver to make it usable against later-game enemies.

Furthermore, you'd retain the problem of 5e maneuvers in that you pick the best stuff at level 3 and then maybe at level 6, and then pick stuff you maybe want to use one day once upon a time if the stars are right, and they're still very basic techniques despite the fact that you're supposed to be progressing to a legendary hero by that point.

[paladinn]

5e maneuvers are very low-power for 3.5, even moreso than they are in 5e. Consider that, say, Precision Attack is far less important, because in 3.5, you get to hit with most of your attacks on a roll of 2 to 5, and the only use for it would be Power Attack fodder. Getting a 1d8 bonus to your attack roll just to dump it on PA and get a 1d8*2 damage bonus is...not interesting.

Any combat maneuver maneuvers (pardon the tautology) would also be rather terrible, since 3.5 wants you to invest quite a bit into a specific maneuver to make it usable against later-game enemies.

Furthermore, you'd retain the problem of 5e maneuvers in that you pick the best stuff at level 3 and then maybe at level 6, and then pick stuff you maybe want to use one day once upon a time if the stars are right, and they're still very basic techniques despite the fact that you're supposed to be progressing to a legendary hero by that point.

So what's a happy medium between the "plain, basic, boring" fighter and the full-wuxia ToB warblade?

[zlefin]

So basically, everyone here wants a fighter to be better any anything But fighting.

Ever since 0e, the fighter has been the simplest but one of the most popular classes. Simplicity is not a bad thing. The mods that I (or Paizo, or..) made to the class are to add a little power with not much more complexity. Skills and such are still a thing. So are feats. Those are where the flavor comes in.

Anyway, thanks for the input. I'll keep working on my fighter class; y'all keep working on.. whatever it is.


what power level do you want your modified fighter to have?
tier 3? and how do you want optimization ceiling/floor to be affected, if at all?

Have oyu looked through spheres of might to see how it handles such? It's certainly far less wuxia than ToB thematically while giving martials more options and power.

[Morphic tide]

what power level do you want your modified fighter to have?
tier 3? and how do you want optimization ceiling/floor to be affected, if at all?
On my part, I think Fighter should verge on Tier 2 at peak performance by having off-the-wall options for the critical permissions to apply the existing Hypermurder to everything with HP values, while adding a few fixed features to set a stable floor condition so they can be trusted to function instead of being crippled by the infestation of trap options.

[Prime32]

Ok, I took another look at the 5e Battlemaster subclass. I'm still not crazy about some of the maneuvers; but some actually look kind of interesting. So taking my previous write-up, it seems like the 5 DR increases could be replaced with BM maneuvers. Which gets us here:

L3 - 3 maneuvers, 4d8 Superiority dice
L6 - 2 more maneuvers, 5d8 SD
L10 - 2 more maneuvers, 5d10
L15 - 2 maneuvers, 6d10
L18 - 6d12 SD

Same maneuvers as in 5e.

Is it OP? It's a little more complex than the "basic" build, and doesn't have the defensive ability.

Thoughts?

So what's a happy medium between the "plain, basic, boring" fighter and the full-wuxia ToB warblade?
Warblade has bigger numbers on its maneuvers than Battlemaster because they usually can't be combined with a full attack. Full attacks hit really hard, and Warblades are worse at them than Fighters.

It's not particularly OP, but it also doesn't seem particularly different from what warblades do with their maneuvers, so I'm not sure how its "wuxia level" would differ. :smallconfused: The biggest thing it's missing is a mechanic like

After making a single unmodified attack, you can take a swift action to recover all your superiority dice.
to make it more about skill and less about 4e-style wells of power. Substitute some other niche action like total defense if you want.

[quetzalcoatl5]

I always felt that the Pathfinder 1e Myrmidon, a Fighter archetype from Path of War, was really close to what I wanted a Fighter to be, even if you stripped them of the maneuver system from that book. The grit mechanic is excellent!

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/dreamscarred-press-fighter-archetypes/myrmidon-fighter-archetype/

[ngilop]

a quick fix for a decent Fighter is to gestalt the fighter with any of the subclasses of warrior.

Swashbuckler: for a more dueling light weapon use fighter

Knight: for a defensive focused fighter

Marshal: for a commander style fighter

Barbarian: (never should have been a base class alongside the fighter to begin with, honestly) for a walk scarily and carry a big stick fighter

Samurai: for the more scary and honor driven fighter

[Ignimortis]

So what's a happy medium between the "plain, basic, boring" fighter and the full-wuxia ToB warblade?

Frankly, the best direction to address that, if you think that the Warblade is too wuxia, would be to just give Fighter:
1) An extra Fighter feat at every level. This would allow Fighters to branch out offensively, with at least two combat styles worth something.
2) A good Will save. A good Reflex save is optional and can be shored up, a good Will save is the hallmark of a heroic warrior.
3) 6+INT skill points and a skill list comparable to a Rogue.
4) Some form of Pounce, maybe as a Fighter feat at level 6+.

The thing is, Warblade is not very wuxia aside from being able to leap 20 feet high at lower levels and parry spells which make attack rolls, both of which is something a Fighter can still learn to do, just at a higher level.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Fighters are arguably the best specialist combatants in the game, mastering a single fighting style faster than any other class. One still-useful buff to their combat capability is giving them some built-in versatility.

Combat Generalist - Give fighters the first feat in every combat style for free: Improved Trip, Improved Grapple (not technically the first feat, I know, shush), Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush, etc. Give it to them at like level 4, let them retrain any feat it gives them that they already had. This will give the Fighter some nice flexibility; if their main shtick isn't the best one for a given fight, they can at least use any shtick without eating attacks of opportunity.

Improvisation - The Fighter can reassign a certain number of their [Fighter] feats as a swift action, 1/encounter. They can only be switched to [Fighter] feats for which the Fighter meets the requirements. They can reassign up to [class level]/3 feats, rounded down, in this way. At the end of the encounter, the feats switch back to the Fighter's original selections.


Combat Generalist seems like a good starting point as a Fighter combat-buff. Fighters should be good at fighting, and you should never feel like a chump when you try something comparatively basic like whacking someone with your shield just because it's not your specialty. This seems like a lot of feats, and it is, but being broad rather than deep means the Fighter isn't actually getting any better at their main shtick, unless they're going for one of the weird builds that combines multiple fighting styles like Agile Shield Fighter + TWF (in which case, more power to them). Level 4-5 is early enough to be relevant, but late enough that you have to commit serious build resources to it; you have to actually be a Fighter to earn this one. If it does turn out to be too strong, remove the line about getting to swap now-redundant feats.

Not sure about Improvisation, honestly; it seems like a lot of book-keeping and may be better suited as an ACF. Something for more experienced players to take, to give them even more adaptability. The per encounter restriction is probably necessary, but maybe allow more switches per encounter at higher levels.

For the record, I'm also of the opinion that the Fighter is also in desperate need of some out-of-combat utility. Every class should be able to contribute in all three pillars of the game: combat, social, and exploration/environmental. At the very least, 2+Int skill points per level is just embarrassing, and should be reserved solely for classes already incentivized to commit to Int.

[paladinn]

Wow, everyone is really all over the map on this.

The one thing it seems everyone agrees on is giving the fighter good Fort and Will saves. I concur. Although I'm more prone to use the 5e/C&C-style attribute-based saves.

One of the suggestions was to just give the fighter more feats. Actually that's exactly the opposite of what I'm going for. 3.x fighters are nothing but feats. I get that that facilitates a lot of concepts and builds; but it also makes for a class with really no identity. I liked the approach of the homebrew Soldier class and the PF fighter: they have actual features besides just feats, even if some of the features are feat-like or combos of feats, and they still allow for a number of actual feats.

The go-to suggestion across the 3.x/PF community seems to be "dump the fighter and go warblade." The problem there is, not everyone wants to play wuxia; and the fighter was supposed to be one of the simpler classes in the game. ToB is anything but simple. Thus my suggestion to use something more like the Battlemaster maneuvers from 5e.

So that's what I'm shooting for: more powerful, more interesting, but hopefully no more complicated and not unbalanced (not so much worried about that one tho). And no, I care nothing about tiers and such.

[StSword]

A system I'd like is to borrow from the DCC's Warrior class' Mighty Deed of Arms (https://irontavern.com/2012/07/13/dcc-rpg-the-warrior/) class feature.

For those unfamiliar, instead of taking a bunch of feats to be good at specific special attacks or whatever, or sacrificing their regular attacks, they get a die roll to do stunts while doing their regular attack damage.

So the DCC warrior is a dynamic tactical swashbuckler.

And in my opinion more than a few combat feats are things that a fighter ought to be able to do to begin with, so win-win.

[Prime32]

The go-to suggestion across the 3.x/PF community seems to be "dump the fighter and go warblade." The problem there is, not everyone wants to play wuxia; and the fighter was supposed to be one of the simpler classes in the game. ToB is anything but simple. Thus my suggestion to use something more like the Battlemaster maneuvers from 5e.

So that's what I'm shooting for: more powerful, more interesting, but hopefully no more complicated and not unbalanced (not so much worried about that one tho). And no, I care nothing about tiers and such.

Here's a comparison of two 1st level battlemaster maneuvers in play (ported to 3.5) with their closest warblade equivalents, and how many steps, rolls and conditionals are involved in each:




Sweeping Attack: Make two melee attacks, each against a different foe that you threaten. Resolve each attack separately.
Make a melee attack. Then if it hits, you can attack another creature you threaten, except that they must be within 5ft of the original target; this attack always deals 1d6 damage, increasing to 1d8 at 10th level and 1d10 at 18th level. Then, make any number of additional attacks up to the limit allowed by your Base Attack Bonus.
Feinting Attack:Make a Concentration check, then a melee attack. If your check result is higher than the foe's AC, your foe is flat-footed against your attack and you deal +1d6 damage. If it fails, your attack is made at a -2 penalty.
You may only use this maneuver against a creature with an Intelligence score. Make a Bluff check as a swift action, then your foe makes a Sense Motive check as a free action. You take a -4 penalty on your Bluff check if your foe is non-humanoid, and a -8 penalty if they are of animal intelligence. Then, if you make a full attack this round, and if your first attack misses, then you may reroll if the result of your Bluff check is higher than the result of your foe's Sense Motive check. Then if your attack hits you deal +1d6 damage, increasing to 1d8 at 10th level and 1d10 at 18th level.


(Warblade presented first, Battlemaster second)