[3.5] Fixing the fighter

[jiriku]

It is often said on this forum that fighters cannot match spellcasters, chiefly because they have fewer options than casters, and don't have the luxury of choosing different powers each day as the Tier 1 classes do.

To narrow this "options gap" in my upcoming campaign, I am considering the following change, inspired by the warblade's Weapon Aptitude ability.

Your first level of fighter grants you Martial Aptitude, an extraordinary class ability which allows you to spend one hour drilling with your weapons to retrain your fighter bonus feats. You may change any or all of your feats gained as bonus feats from fighter levels, but you must comply with the retraining rules as normal. You may not use Martial Aptitude to retrain any of your other feats, such as racial feats or the feats gained by all characters at 1st level and every 3rd character level. All of your choices must remain legal, and you may not change a feat if it is a necessary prerequisite for a prestige class you have. The changes are permanent, but you can always change them again with another hour of training.

Opinions?

Edit: Adding new 3rd level class feature as a result of forum suggestions.

At third level, you gain Martial Focus, an extraordinary class ability which allows you to subtitute your fighter level+2 for your base attack bonus when qualifying for the fighter bonus feats granted by your fighter levels (for example, you can use a fighter level of 6 to meet the +8 base attack bonus requirement of Improved Critical). The feature only helps you when determining if you qualify for a feat. You must still use your normal base attack bonus for all calculations when using the feat (such as when determining the maximum penalty you can take when using the Power Attack Feat).

[Eloel]

That still keeps them 'one trick pony', only different tricks every day.
The best way to use that would be getting a bunch of Martial Study and Martial Stance feats, and changing known maneuvers everyday, but seriously, why not ToB while at it?

[Keld Denar]

Whats wrong with accepting warblade as a moderately reasonable "fix" for fighter? I mean, keep fighter around, in case people want to dip 1-2 levels for, but other than that, blah. Someone else has already done the work for you. Instead of trying to make a fighter more like a warblade, just...use...warblade?

[Doc Roc]

I have some stuff you might like to see. It rolls out at 11:59 PM EST. We'll be testing it in the ToS.

[Mystic Muse]

If you want to fix fighter without using TOB for some reason. (I for example am using fighter because my DM banned ToB since the other players generally play core classes like rogue) then I believe there are already several fighter fixes in the homebrew forum.

If you're not using TOB only because you don't have it that's not much of an excuse. there are other ways to get it besides buying it. For example, your local library. I know my library has ToB at it.Although this isn't always the case.

you can also take maneuvers from ToB and turn them into feats. There are a lot of things you can do for fighter but we have to know specifically what you want it to do. if you need to give it more options ToB is a good choice because it gives you a LOT of options. Is there a specific reason you don't want to use ToB?

[jiriku]

Were I playing a fighter, I would play a warblade. As a DM, warblade levels are one of my favorite tools for advancing ogres, giants, and other nasty melee beasts.

This is for my players. Some of them are old-school players who started with 1st or 2nd edition, and even choosing feats seems new-fangled to them (THAC0 anyone?). Others are casual players who would play D&D on a Tuesday night with a borrowed PHB, then never think about D&D again until the next Tuesday night rolls around.

For both groups, I need a simple noob-friendly solution that forgives character-design mistakes and doesn't force the casual players to purchase and/or read a 160-page book if they don't want to. In that context, what do you think of this? How could I improve it?

[PId6]

you can also take maneuvers from ToB and turn them into feats.

There is; it's called Martial Study.

[Mystic Muse]

Were I playing a fighter, I would play a warblade. As a DM, warblade levels are one of my favorite tools for advancing ogres, giants, and other nasty melee beasts.

This is for my players. Some of them are old-school players who started with 1st or 2nd edition, and even choosing feats seems new-fangled to them (THAC0 anyone?). Others are casual players who would play D&D on a Tuesday night with a borrowed PHB, then never think about D&D again until the next Tuesday night rolls around.

For both groups, I need a simple noob-friendly solution that forgives character-design mistakes and doesn't force the casual players to purchase and/or read a 160-page book if they don't want to. In that context, what do you think of this? How could I improve it?

I honestly don't know how to improve it. The players might like playing warblades and you can give them the one feat free that allows them to change their readied maneuvers if they decide they don't like them. Also, until you're a high enough level only about 20 pages in TOB are usually relevant to your class anyway.

they can also be swordsages. they MIGHT like playing crusaders but I don't know.

it might not be too newbie friendly but neither are melee classes in PHB from what I've heard.

[Swordguy]

Whats wrong with accepting warblade as a moderately reasonable "fix" for fighter? I mean, keep fighter around, in case people want to dip 1-2 levels for, but other than that, blah. Someone else has already done the work for you. Instead of trying to make a fighter more like a warblade, just...use...warblade?

{Scrubbed} The OP's pretty clearly asking for a "fix", not a "replacement".

How's this? Semantically speaking, the Warblade is...not...a...Fighter. That's more than enough reason for the occasional OCD person who wants to play a "fighter", and not a "warblade", and this hobby attracts MORE than its fair share of OCD types. To say nothing of the Warblade being completely un-newbie-friendly.


(To be fair, WotC probably should have just released the Warblade as an official errata for the Fighter, but done's done.)

[jiriku]

There is; it's called Martial Study.

Slightly off-topic. Martial Study and Martial Stance PWN HARD. I think 40% of my NPC designs use one of both of those feats now. The first time a monster pulls off a maneuver, it makes the players deathly afraid because they realize they now have no idea what the monster is capable of.

[Doc Roc]

Making your first good ToB build really is NOT newbie friendly. It's basically the Gom Jabbar of D&D, up there with your first 17/9 Gish build

[Fixer]

You can check out my Fighter Fix in my signature. It keeps the basics of the fighter (use feats, not a lot of class features) with some appropriate power upgrades.

[kamikasei]

I suggest:

- either giving Fighters Pounce as a class feature at level 6, or just declaring that Full Attacks are a standard action (only for Fighters, or in general, whichever you prefer).
- removing/reducing either/both speed penalties and ACP for different classes of armour or by certain amounts. I think there are feats to do this already, probably in PHBII - just make them class features at the earliest levels they could be qualified for.

More speculatively:
- something to boost single-weapon damage, the way that the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart standard-action damage-boosters help out sword-and-boarders, would be nice, but I'm not sure what the best mechanic would be. You could go with something as blunt-force as saying that Fighters, and Fighters only, can make a single attack in place of a full attack which multiplies the damage by their number of attacks, or something like that (this is right off the top of my head and probably horribly ill-conceived).
- perhaps you could treat bonus fighter feats as if they were talent trees, and a fighter could have multiple ones for different weapons. So he could have both the shield-bashing, charging, and tripping "feat sets" available, and use each depending on what weapon he trained with that morning. Again, could be terrible design.

I see you're living up to your playground title.

The only title I see on Keld's post is "Troll in the Playground". Surely that can't be what you're referring to, here?

[SparkMandriller]

Semantically speaking, the Warblade is...not...a...Fighter. That's more than enough reason for the occasional OCD person who wants to play a "fighter", and not a "warblade", and this hobby attracts MORE than its fair share of OCD types.

I dunno if the people who want to play a fighter just 'cause it's a fighter are really gonna want it fixed. They don't seem like the sorta people who'd care about power levels.

[9mm]

Whats wrong with accepting warblade as a moderately reasonable "fix" for fighter? I mean, keep fighter around, in case people want to dip 1-2 levels for, but other than that, blah. Someone else has already done the work for you. Instead of trying to make a fighter more like a warblade, just...use...warblade?

1) there are somethings the Warblade can't do that a fighter can. (and vice versa)
2) If I wanted to play a Warblade, I'd play a Warblade.

[Ravens_cry]

Please Stand by For a Test of the Emergency Rant System
Why should fighters be fixed? It is true they lack many options beyond 'Hit Stuff' and "Hit Stuff Harder'. But every game needs someone that can just be picked up played in a way that is satisfying for the new player. We were all newbies once, still am here, and the multitude of options of a magic user, even though they are 'best' can be intimidating. Besides, with teamwork from the magic users, the fighter can be still relevant as a beat stick, that is the whole idea behind the Batman wizard. Dungeons and Dragons is always a team effort.
If you want a more options for a fighter, look to the prestige classes, gish, or Tomb of Battle. I am not saying they should replace the fighter, but they should be there for when and if the player wants more. And frankly, the idea that a warrior with a large piece metal could do the same things as one who can KO the laws of physics in one round really suspends my belief.
It's even worse when the fighter-type can only do it so much per day. Magic coming from inner reserve of power, makes sense to me as much as magic does. The idea that you can only do that swirly bit with the sword that does exactly the same thing as magic, but isn't magic, only once per day? Yeah, excuse me, that makes my brain want leap out of my skull and take a fast train to Albuquerque, as it sure ain't gonna be needed any more.
Thank You, This Has Been a Broadcast of the Emergency Rant System

[Nero24200]

Could we lay off the TOB? We have an 11 page thread dedicated to the non-TOB fans saying "Don't tell us to use TOB when we say we don't want".

For fighter advice, how it would fix it depends on what you define as being it's problem. If you think things like mobility are a problem, it won't do anything. In any case, a single ability isn't likely to fix (what I feel) are the fighter's core problems. Though it seems like a start at least.

[kamikasei]

Why should fighters be fixed? It is true they lack many options beyond 'Hit Stuff' and "Hit Stuff Harder'. But every game needs someone that can just be picked up played in a way that is satisfying for the new player.

It's not just that fighters can only hit things. It's also that they have a hard time getting at things to hit them, have to stand still while doing their hitting, and depending on the rest of the group, in order to compete with other sources of damage (or the speed with which other kinds of attack can neutralize an enemy) have to overspecialize not just on "hitting things" but on "hitting things with one particular type of attack suitable to only one particular battlefield type and frustratingly easy to thwart".

The idea that you can only do that swirly bit with the sword that does exactly the same thing as magic, but isn't magic, only once per day?

What are you thinking of here?

Could we lay off the TOB? We have an 11 page thread dedicated to the non-TOB fans saying "Don't tell us to use TOB when we say we don't want".

On the other hand, the OP did not in fact say he didn't want ToB. He was asked why he wouldn't just use it, he answered, there was some discussion of how to use some elements from it via the Martial * feats. That's all. Let's not have "don't ever mention ToB unless presented with a formal request in triplicate to do so" become a reaction-meme.

[Ravens_cry]

What are you thinking of here?

I don't want to turn this into a 4E flamewar, but that's how that edition feels like to me.

[kamikasei]

I don't want to turn this into a 4E flamewar, but that's how that edition feels like to me.

Ah, I see. I thought you were voicing a misconception about ToB. Never mind, so.

[Temet Nosce]

Personally? If I were going to change the Fighter my changes would look like this.

1. Feat at every level

2. Get multiple of what we'll call "fighting styles" (and I don't mean the ones from CW or whatever). Basically, at certain levels you'll get the ability to assign all your feats over again and can switch between which set of selected feats you're using as a standard action.

3. Have your Fighter level be added to any requirements for feats (I.E. if you were level 4 Fighter, and something needed an 8 BAB you'd qualify).

4. Access to Epic feats early (possibly with a limit on what you can take).

5. I might also add a capstone, but I'm drawing a blank on what.

[Grumman]

Please Stand by For a Test of the Emergency Rant System
Why should fighters be fixed? It is true they lack many options beyond 'Hit Stuff' and "Hit Stuff Harder'. But every game needs someone that can just be picked up played in a way that is satisfying for the new player.

I disagree that the Fighter is that character. Primarily this is because, like the full arcane spellcasters, you have to pick every class feature for yourself. Until you know which feats are good and which are bad, that's a recipe for disaster.

If I had a new player wanting something easy to play, I'd point them at the Barbarian, not the Fighter.

[Tehnar]

I think the point of fixing the Fighter is to make him stand out as a class separate from a Warblade (which frankly I think WotC intended to replace the fighter, a attitude I don't much like).

I think the first thing to realize is that the fighter is a very MAD class. Thus I suggest you allow your players to roll dice when they create characters. This will kill most of the MAD problems. With good rolls a MAD class becomes much more rewarding to play.

Next I would look at the fighters skills. Their skill list is very poor as is the number of skills they get per level.

I like the OPs Martial aptitude class feature. It further improves the fighters shtick, which are the bonus feats. I would like to hear how it works out in real play, because there is one problem I foresee. A character might use a lot of bonus fighter feats as a prerequisite to one thing or another, and thus be left with a very few feats to switch with Martial Aptitude.

Also you might want to look at various fighter fixes floating on the boards for inspiration. I have one of mine that has been playtested, so if you wish I can send you a PM with the details.

[Temet Nosce]

I disagree that the Fighter is that character. Primarily this is because, like the full arcane spellcasters, you have to pick every class feature for yourself. Until you know which feats are good and which are bad, that's a recipe for disaster.

If I had a new player wanting something easy to play, I'd point them at the Barbarian, not the Fighter.

I'd agree with this, and in fact to expand... Fighter would be the next to last core class I'd suggest for a new player. Monk is the only one I'd be less likely to consider a good idea.

If they picked a spellcaster they might get bogged down, but it's unlikely they could make themselves totally ineffective. With a Fighter, odds are good that they will make themselves totally ineffective.

[kamikasei]

I disagree that the Fighter is that character. Primarily this is because, like the full arcane spellcasters, you have to pick every class feature for yourself. Until you know which feats are good and which are bad, that's a recipe for disaster.

This is very, very true. One of the big problems with the fighter's design is that so many feats are traps, yet they're also permanent once chosen.

[Dienekes]

1) more skills and improved skill list
2) either feat every level or some form of class feature
3) Fix feats to make a good portion come together or increase over fighter levels or simply stronger.
4) make feats/class features that can do other things than full attack. (An attack that ignores DR, an attack that weakens your opponent's attacks, an attack that pierces through magical barriers, an attack that stops a magic effect, ect.)
5) Standard attack does 2 attacks at 11 bab level.
6) Some way for Fighters to get feats earlier than others (Add 1/2 Fighter level to bab or +2 to all attributes, ect.) and/or the ability to switch a few feats every day.

[Amiel]

Regarding feats; redesign the feats so they give variable returns depending on the class in play. The fighter will gain more of a benefit from combat/martial (fighter bonus) feats than another class. Ideally, these feats should improve or extend the fighter's existing abilities.
This benefit may involve a base numeric modifier, allow the fighter to target additional objects or creatures, or increase the duration of the feat.

Combine feats; merge Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization into the one feat, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Specialization into another and so on and so forth.

Instead of limiting Focus and Specialization to specific weapons, allow the fighter access to entire weapon groups.

[jiriku]

These are great suggestions!

Fixer, I like how your fighter fixes are granted at odd-numbered levels. That smooths out the class progression and has a nice aesthetic - every even-numbered level gives you a bonus feat, and every odd-numbered level improves your bonus feats.

Kamakasei, I totally agree with you. Fighters need more options, more mobility, and the ability to hit and deal competitive damage without becoming overspecialized.

I like the suggestions provided on mobility. When people can move, they make more use of their environment, and combat becomes more fun. I'm considering making the full attack a standard action for all classes. Do you all think that would work, or could that damage game balance in a way I'm not seeing?

[Yora]

Many people say they are unhappy with fighters only hitting stuff and not being able to meaningfully do anything else?
Giving them more skill points and more skills to pull of more acrobatic stunts, like jumping from a balcony and making a charge attack as they fall, is probably a start to make them appear more fun. (And I think appearance to be cool is more important than the bare numbers of an ability.)
Else, I can think of heavy lifting actions, like crashing doors, pushing heavy things over a ledge, or throwing people into chasms. (Moving a grappled opponent into a dangerous square does exactly that, you just have to fluff it right.)

When thinking about ways to make fighters more fun to play, I would start with listing things that would be cool for a fighter to do. And THEN look how it could be translated into rules.

I also use Weapon Groups and give fighter Weapon Focus, Specialization, Greater Focus, and Greater Specialization as a bonus feat at every odd level. Might help with making them Masters of all Weapons.

[Amiel]

The fighter tends to have an over-reliance on feats. Thus the problem becomes, how one can install modifications into the mechanic that allows it to do what it does well yet still enable diversification so it can fulfill limitless archetypes.

The fighter is less specialised than all other classes; unlike other class fixes, the monk for example, the changes need to be broadly applicable and should not pigeon-hole the fighter unnecessarily.