The Fighter Manifesto - Now with Surveys!

[itastelikelove]

In order to improve the Manifesto (below), I am currently trying to get everyone to fill out a short survey about what they want and expect from revisions or fixes to the Fighter class. Here's the survey (and a little bit of chatter):

Spoiler

Show

I made you a little survey. Free-form critiques and suggestions for the Manifesto are welcome as well, but the idea is to have some quick and easy questions for people to answer instead of asking for people to start ranting at the beginning and work their way down. Also, hopefully this will get everybody's opinions on the most important issues in a way that's easy for me to compare notes, and I can draw on that information to improve and expand the lists of expectations etc. in the Manifesto.

Here's the first second draft of the survey that I wrote up (Edit: added two new questions).

Spoiler

Show

1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.

2.What role should the Fighter occupy in combat? (For consistency, let's use the 4e terms – striker, defender, controller, and leader. Also specify melee or ranged) Should each build/character fit one role, or should any given Fighter be able to adapt to multiple roles (not necessarily all – just more than one)?

3.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to meet the requirements of the above combat roles (General terms, please – ability to draw attacks, prevent enemy movement, extra movement, status effects, etc.)?

4.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to fight effectively against spellcasters?

5.What role should the Fighter occupy outside of combat?

6.Should a Fighter be effective with any weapon or armor or lack thereof? If not, should it be limited by the nature of the class, or by the specifics of each individual build/combat role?

7.What role should Feats play in a Fighter revision? Are they sufficient? Necessary but not sufficient? Completely unnecessary?

8.Are limited use (per day, per encounter, etc.) abilities desirable? Acceptable? Unacceptable?

9.Do Fighters need supernatural abilities in order to cope with spellcasters, or should they be entirely mundane?

10.Should a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters? Can a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters?

11.If a Fighter is in a lower tier than full spellcasters, is there another way to entice players to be Fighters?

12.What are some of the spells that most strongly affect the viability of the Fighter class? These can be spells that eliminate the Fighter from combat, are necessary for a Fighter to be viable, or make the Fighter obsolete by empowering casters.

13. Should a Fighter be dependent on his equipment to function properly? Should a disarmed Fighter, or one stripped of his possessions when taken prisoner, or one who didn't bring along the right kind of weapon be useless? Should it be necessary for Fighters to spend all of their money on basic magic items (weapons, armor, stat-boosters, etc.) in order to stay relevant at higher levels?

14. Should a Fighter be dependent on having spellcaster allies? There are several classes that you can make an entire party out of. Should a party of nothing but Fighters be viable?

Feel free to critique the survey itself, but people have already started using it, so I don't want to change it too much. Is it confusing at any point? Did I miss anything important?

(EDIT: Before we get too far into this part of the project, I want to declare an official moratorium on commenting on people's responses to the survey. Temporarily, anyway. First, I'd like everyone to have a chance to put up their opinions/expectations before being inundated with debate. Second, these ARE opinions and expectations, and probably won't be easily swayed by debate. Third, if you DO manage to change someone's mind, it'll probably make it harder for me to look things up in the future.

Let's give it a few days.

At the VERY least, put up your own reply before critiquing anyone else's.

We the People of the Homebrew Forums, in Order to form a more perfect Fighter, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Fighter Manifesto for the Homebrew Forums of the Order of the Stick.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all classes are not created equal, but that they are endowed by their Creators with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Bonuses, Options, and the pursuit of Kicking the Crap out of Each Other.

I. Statement of the Intention of This Document and Thread

1. To be a resource for both brewers and reviewers, with the goal of making Fighter fixes that recognize and attempt to fix the recognized problems with the Fighter. I, and many others, have considered making alterations to the Fighter class, desiring to make it a class worthy of it's glorious history in literature, and a class that can contribute to any campaign. Unfortunately, the first page or more of comments on a new Fighter fix is always, and entirely, made up of “do you even know what you're doing?” and “it's still not as good as a wizard” and “OMG that would kill a wizard stop what are you doing” posts. We should be able to communicate most of these issues, on either side of the Original Post, by saying “These are my Expectations”.

2. To provide a common point of reference, in order to reduce debate and repetition, and expedite the homebrewing process. This Document is to be one set of Expectations. It need not be everyone's, but with this Manifesto, we can all point to one place and say “this is what I want” or “this is not what I want”. And then we can get some work done.

3. To discuss and debate the flaws and merits of the Fighter, the traits that should characterize the Fighter and its role(s) in an adventuring party, and the changes that need to be made to address the aforementioned issues.

4. Not to create a fixed fighter class. The following shall be declarations, suggestions, and ideas. What we are creating is a tool to facilitate homebrewing. Not a homebrewed class.

5. And likewise not to create a list of specific or required abilities. This is not our goal. It may happen anyway, but let's not get carried away.

6. Not to fix any other class or ability. That is not what we are doing. We all know magic is broken, but that's not the point. Nor would fixing it make Fighters into what they are supposed to be. So we won't. We are also not going to talk about how these changes to the Fighter class will leave the other core heavy melee classes in the dust. They suck too. You can write your own Manifesto for them if you want to.

II. Presuppositions: The Undisputed Facts

1. All classes are not created equal. Fighters are not magical. As such, they can never be Tier 1 (and likely not Tier 2 either). As such, they can never rival the Wizard class. This does not mean that a Fighter will never be able to defeat a Wizard, nor does this mean that Fighters should be useless. Ideally, this should not mean that a Wizard can do everything a Fighter can do, only better...but there might not be anything we can do about that.

2. Fighters have no magic of their own. Any class that does is not a Fighter. Call it something else, or go play a swordsage or whatever. We'll be over here making Fighters.

3. Fighters are rad. Otherwise we wouldn't care.

4. Fighters are crappy. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this. Again.

III. Merits: What Fighters Can Do Right Now

1. Fighters can hit things with weapons and deal damage to them. Most things, most of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if some optimized Fighter builds could do more damage than most Wizards. This does not need fixing, but it is essential to being a Fighter, and must not be lost completely.

2. Fighters have high Hp, Fort saves, and AC. This means that they can do well against almost all non-magical opponents, and a few magical attacks. Nothing needs changing there.

3. Fighters get lots of feats. They don't really need any more. Not because it wouldn't help - just because they already have them.

IV. Fatal Flaws: Why Fighters Are Just SO Darn Awful

1. Fighters are weak against every single Will save spell in the game. They can be removed completely from combat without even slowing down a decent spellcaster. Not cool. Especially since they should be the party's first line of defense, or most consistently active offense.

2. Fighters are one-trick ponies in combat. Your possible actions are: move, stand still, do some damage, do more damage, trip with spiked chain, do a little more damage, wait for the others to do something. Your other choices are not particularly useful, and prevent you from doing the one thing you are good at – dealing damage.

3. Fighters are either chargers or full-attackers. If you aren't doing what you're built for, your usefulness (damage) drops by 50-75%.

4. Fighters cannot do their job. That is, they cannot use their giant muscles and heavy armor to protect weaker members of the party, because enemies should logically be targeting the dangerous-and/or-squishy characters first and they have no reason not to.

5. Fighters have nothing to do outside of combat. What, three or four sometimes-useful skills, all of which are limited to getting you past a specific kind of obstacle or terrain? And that's all.

6. Fighters cannot use magic. Why did you even bring this up? Go stand in the corner. We're not talking about this.

V. Expectations: What We the People Want to See

This Section, and the following Section, are composed of traits that we Expect to see in any remake of the Fighter class, and Suggestions for additions that are not critical, but which could add to the playability and likeability of the class. Following each Expectation or Suggestion will be a short list of ideas about how to implement said Expectation or Suggestion. These are not, themselves, Expectations, although you may consider them suggestions. You are free to ignore them completely, as is your Right as a member of the Homebrew Forum.

1. A way to resist Will save-based spells, at least occasionally.

Spoiler

Show

1a. A higher base Will save, or a level-dependent bonus would be the easiest fix.
1b. Something like Mettle (Crusader ability, ToB) or Iron Heart Surge (ToB) might work too.

2. Effective “Tanking” ability. Some reason for enemies to hit you instead of the rest of the party.

Spoiler

Show

2a. An ability to force enemies to target the Fighter against their better judgment.
2b. An ability to hurt foes who target your allies.
2c. An ability to hurt foes who ignore you.
2d. An ability that makes Fighters such a nuisance that they must be dealt with first.

3. More worthwhile options in combat. Hitting things with a stick is fun, but it's just not enough.

Spoiler

Show

3a. Interesting battlefield control abilities.
3b. New ways to use old battlefield control abilities.
3c. The ability to continue damaging foes while using battlefield control abilities.

4. Economy of actions.

Spoiler

Show

4a. Pounce.
4b. If a caster can move 30+ feet and still call on ancient powers twice in one round, I should be able to move 10 feet and still hit something with my stick twice. At least.
4c. Abilities that use Swift or Immediate actions.

5. More Skill points and better class Skills. Especially Intimidate. And some others.

Spoiler

Show

5a. Intimidate
5b. Spot and Listen
5c. A bunch of others.
5d. Use Magic Device

6. Abilities to prevent or counter spellcasting. Or anything to help out against those pesky magic users.

Spoiler

Show

6a. An ability to keep a target from casting for a round or more.
6b. A better way to interrupt spellcasters than wasting a whole turn readying an action to make a single attack.

VI. Suggestions: What Might Also Be Kind of Nice

1. Other out-of-combat options.

Spoiler

Show

1a. Anything to round out the Fighter.
1b. Perhaps skill-assist bonuses, to represent group leadership ability.

2. Abilities to encourage diversity of Ability Scores.

Spoiler

Show

2a. Something to reward people who want a different kind of Fighter.
2b. Not just adding different ability modifiers to things that a Fighter can already do.

3. Greater variety of viable builds.

Spoiler

Show

3a. Something to make Two-Weapon Fighters viable against opponents with high DR.
3b. Something to make Sword-and-Shield Fighters useful, especially as “tanks” and defenders of the party.

4. No loss of damage-dealing potential.

Spoiler

Show

4a. Because sometimes a player really only cares about hitting things really hard with their stick.
4b. Or at least not without a compensatory increase in utility in other areas.

Please feel free to post your thoughts, be they good or bad, agreeing or dissenting. As the discussion progresses, I hope to add good/logical/popular points and ideas to the Manifesto, in order to reflect the beliefs of the People of the Homebrew Forums.

Disclaimer:

Spoiler

Show

My primary goal in making this “Manifesto” is to create a compiled list of people's issues with and ideas about the Fighter class, since it seems to me to be the most frequently “fixed” class on the boards (along with the Monk, perhaps). I recognize that it may be a bit presumptuous of me to make this sort of post, especially as a newbie to the Forum, but I sincerely believe that a common reference point would be a boon to the community. I don't know if anyone has attempted this before, but I would assume not, because I haven't seen it referenced or linked to. If so, then hopefully someone will mention it here, and newcomers like me will get to see it.

Credit where it's due:

Spoiler

Show

Most of what I have here comes from comments on Rin_Hunter's recent Fighter Improvement thread, my own thoughts, and half-remembered ideas from other discussions. To Rin_Hunter: You had a few good things going there – I was going to comment with a couple of ideas for you, and then decided I'd rather just make the whole thing myself. And then I decided to do this instead. Sorry! The comments I drew on most were from Gnomo, Lysander, and PairO'Dice Lost. I probably took a little from everyone else, too, so if you posted over there: Thanks!

(Note: Please feel free to correct my spelling, grammar, punctuation, typos, references, and Errors of all sorts. This is ridiculous enough as it is. It doesn't need to be illegible as well.)

[Ashtagon]

My personal views are:

1) RL "fighters" tend to evolve into military commanders (either formal armies or less-organised gangs or warbands). The class should reflect this leadership somehow.
2) Fighters need to have meaningful decisions at the table, rather than just "I hit him really hard".
3) Powers, rather than static bonuses. This follows on from #2.
4) Fighters need something to do outside combat. The "grunt" role can be adequately filled by the warrior NPC class. Fighters should be better than that. More skill points please, and more relevant skills.
5) A reason for the enemy to fight him instead of walking around him. Some kind of "attract enemy aggro" ability, "sudden reach", or somesuch.

[Jallorn]

Personally, I don't see fighters as leaders. I see them as simply skilled warriors. Let them have a PRC that lets them become a good leader by all means, but the fighter class itself is just that, a fighter.

I like this here class: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140278

Especially the way it handles armor and the idea behind Gambits.

I do not however like ToB's "magic" warriors. It's a fine idea, but that's not what the Fighter class is about. Yes, by twentieth level, and even tenth, the Fighter is superhuman, but there's only so much he can do with a weapon. He can't break physics, just bend it.

[Ashtagon]

Personally, I don't see fighters as leaders. I see them as simply skilled warriors. Let them have a PRC that lets them become a good leader by all means, but the fighter class itself is just that, a fighter.

I guess we just see it a little differently. For me, prestige class X is really just a shortcut for saying "set alternate class features for the upper levels of classes A, B, and C". The standard levels 11-20 of each base class then simply become merely "default prestige class for base class Q". In effect, what I propose amounts to modifying the default prestige class. He should still get decent fighting ability of course, but should have enhanced ablities in the aid another action, small-squad operations, and full-scale battles.

Basically, he should mug the marshal and steal some of his stuff. The flavour of the abilities, not the specific implementation of the abilities. Maybe even fold in some of the knight and samurai features. I want to see a menu of alternate class features, and you pick whichever one best suits your concept.

[itastelikelove]

Ashtagon and Jallorn - I agree with pretty much everything both of you said. Including where you disagree. The noble Fighter archetype has room for you both. Arthur was King of the Brittons. The archetypical Black Knight is a loner. Muhammad Ali was an inspirational figure, and a household name. The current world-champion of the UFC is some guy who's really good at kicking people in the head. Fighters can be mercenaries or Kings.

I think that the Fighter class should provide some sort of feature or ability that helps people who want to play the leadership role, but which isn't essential to the functioning of the class, and therefore doesn't punish brawlers and sellswords.

(Edit: Or alternate class features to support both paths. Although I think I would generally try to avoid using too many alternate class features, just to keep things simple)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I would say that there was a way the Fighter could have significantly gotten a power boost: Tactical feats. However, it was never really explored all that well.

I think we can use Fighter feats to fuel a more complex feat-progression, like Tactical Feats or Style Feats (which functions similarly to Stances, in that you have one Style active at a time) can give Fighters back their tactical flexibility.

They have to be very feat-intensive, or they will simply benefit other classes even more, or just flat require Fighter levels, in which case they benefit the Warblade better.

[Gnifle]

First of all - great idea for at thread, the fighter needs all the help he can get.

I've always had a week spot for the guy. Basically every base class should be a viable choice, both at the low levels and the high. I think Pathfinder has tackle this one nicely, but again the fighter still lacks "punch". The main reason for this is, that the fighter is basically the only class in the game who hasn't some kind of magical or special abilities to help him out and make him fun to play. Furthermore he relies to much on feats, many of which doesn't scale with level.

That said, there are some options available for the fighter that are great - point in question, the Combat Form feats from Players Handbook 2. Combat Focus, Combat stability and Combat Vigor really keeps the big guy in the game, but in my opinion they are also the only ones worth taking.

Class variants might be a way out of the jam - but they can't stand alone.
I'm currently playing a fighter variant: A light armored elven fighter with a d12 HD, 4 skill points a level and the Ranger skill selection, who can't wear medium or heavy armor or use shields.

[Runestar]

I feel that bonus feats are still viable, but the challenge is in creating enough higher-lv feats which are comparable to the class features of other classes so the fighter remains competitive at higher lvs. You don't want scenarios where the wizard acquires 8th lv spells and gets to play around with PAO and maze at lv15 while the fighter can only look forward to taking....great cleave???

PHB2 has some rather nifty feats such as robilar's gambit, weapon supremacy, bounding assault/rapid blitz and slashing flurry, and I feel this list can be expanded further. The ACFs are quite neat as well.

[itastelikelove]

Ah, Feats, feats, feats. I love me my feats. They're like Legos for geeks. Just stack 'em up however you want, and you have something fun. But if you want it to be useful, you need all the right pieces, and the colors need to match, and you need to sift through a whole box of all those little thin ones, with just one button? And then you still can't build a proper castle, because you only have a spaceman set...Aaand I think that metaphor's dead now...

Anyway, there are some really terrific feats out there. You could make a significantly better Fighter simply by letting them take even more feats. But the Feats available in the official books still don't quite cut it in some ways: Goad is the only attempt I've seen at an ability to draw attacks, but it only works on characters constrained to melee attacks, only within melee range, and only after a Will save. Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz are amazing, but require three rarely-if-ever useful feats and a high BAB. Robilar's Gambit is loads of fun, but you can still only use it against melee combatants who are targeting you. Weapon Supremacy is nice, but that's an awful lot of WF/WS Feats.

Basically, there are a lot of good feats around, but most of them are not good enough, or don't help Fighters do anything that they can't do already, or cost you a whole lot of your ability to customize.

Homebrewing some Feats can be a great fix for this, by letting you make whatever ability you think would be most beneficial. As a bonus, if you have a particular fondness for Style feats, or Tactical feats, or Combat Form feats (as some of us do), then you can do it however you like it (I have a confession to make on this topic...I have an irrational love of Tactical feats. I know they're mostly useless, but I think they're a great idea, and I try to use them whenever I have a chance. I once played a psionic Bard/Warblade with the White Raven tactical feat. De-optimization for Optimum Fun: that's just how I roll.).

On the other hand, you have to expect that Homebrewed feats will be used by other classes as well. Even Fighter-only feats can be taken by Warblades (I had forgotten about that - thanks for the reminder).

On the whole, I think that there is a lot of good that can be done for Fighters with feats, both old and new, but I think there are still some issues keeping them from being a perfect fix.

[Simba]

The problem with the feats is not their quality but the fact that they don't scale at all. Even first level spells become better as the mage gains levels, why not fighter feats? Make them scale with BAB and you are in a much better shape!

[itastelikelove]

The problem with the feats is not their quality but the fact that they don't scale at all. Even first level spells become better as the mage gains levels, why not fighter feats? Make them scale with BAB and you are in a much better shape!

Yeah, I can see a number of feats benefiting from that. The WF/WS feats could become quite powerful, Iron Will might be a better option, Dodge could be made useful. But what about feats that grant abilities, rather than static bonuses? It costs my Fighter 9% of my entire class' abilities to be able to wield a spiked chain, or wield two weapons (more, if I want more than one attack with the second weapon). Would "greater" feats (WF/WS, TWF, etc.) become obsolete or unnecessary (not that that's a bad thing)? What about feats that already scale, like Power Attack?

In a way, I like that better than just adding more feats, since there are some nice options out there that no one uses because they simply aren't powerful enough at higher levels (Iron Will, for example). It still doesn't give the Fighter many new options, though - just better versions of the feats that are already available.

[Apalala]

The Pathfinder fighter is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Bravery in particular is an insult, seeing as how paladins are IMMUNE to fear at level three and bards have higher saves against fear simply by having a good will save.

Three fixes I have for the fighter:

1. At 1st level, choose will or reflex. This is now your second good save.

2. A limited amount of new saving throws against ongoing effects at the start of your turn. Once per encounter, 3+con per day, something. The saving throws would get a bonus of some sort.

3. A threat mechanic. Overwhelming Assault is a great fix for the fighter...if they could get it before level 15. I'd say something like "At the start of your turn, you can as a free action designate one enemy as your mark. If at the start of your turn that enemy has not successfully attacked you, you gain a +1 bonus to all attack rolls and +3 bonus to all damage rolls against that enemy." This bonus could scale with level, giving more attack and bonus damage as you level up.

[Tavar]

I do not however like ToB's "magic" warriors. It's a fine idea, but that's not what the Fighter class is about. Yes, by twentieth level, and even tenth, the Fighter is superhuman, but there's only so much he can do with a weapon. He can't break physics, just bend it.

Cause, "I hit things hard" or "I hit things precisely" is so very magical. Or are you referring to the disciplines that are only available to the Monk/Paladin analogues?



Personally, I like the Tome of Warriors approach to redesigning feats; all feats scale, either by BaB, skill points, or something else. Now, if this is for more regular DnD, then obviously the feats shouldn't be as good, but I think that was a step in the right direction.

[Set]

I'd want some combination of the following as options;

1) A flat damage bonus, equal to half class level (+1 at 1st, +2 at 3rd, up to +10 at 19th). This would apply to melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks or even unarmed attacks, if the Fighter had Improved Unarmed Attack. This basically is stolen straight from the 1st edition Monk, who had a similar bonus to damage.

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

Option 1 would be some sort of flat defense bonus, similar to what is used by the Wheel of Time RPG.

Option 2 would be a form of 'armor optimization' that gives a Fighter (and only a Fighter) a +1 AC bonus when using a shield, another +1 AC bonus when wearing light armor, a +2 AC bonus when wearing medium armor or a +3 AC bonus when wearing heavy armor, as the Fighter's specialized training simply allows him to 'get more out of the armor' than another wearer. In this latter case, the bonuses would only show up at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th levels, respectively, so that a Paladin couldn't dip 1 level of Fighter to get a +4 AC when wearing fullplate and bearing a shield.

3) The ability to swap out attack bonus (from their BAB), damage bonus (from number one, above) and / or AC bonus (from option 2, above) similar to the effects of Power Attack or Combat Expertise, but without requiring the Fighter to take either of those Feats. The feats would remain in the game, for Paladins, Barbarians, Rogues, etc. to take.

Fighters would be treated as automatically having these feats (Combat Expertise, Power Attack) for the purposes of jockeying around the BAB, damage bonus and / or AC bonuses they get from their Fighter levels (and for the purposes of qualifying for Feats that require them as prerequisites).

So a 5th level Fighter would have BAB +5, a Damage Bonus of +3 and a potential +3 to his Armor Class (if wearing heavy armor), and could reduce any of those numbers to add to any of the others, although no bonus could more than double. This hypothetical Fighter could negate all +3 of his AC bonus to add +3 to his Damage Bonus for the round, or to add +3 to his Attack Bonus, depending on the situation. These adjustments would not be 'stackable' with the Combat Expertise / Power Attack adjustments, and those Feats would be worked up similar to the Pathfinder Power Attack, so that a Barbarian, Paladin, etc. taking Power Attack would have *less* flexibility in moving his numbers around than a Fighter.

4) Fighters would have 4 skill points / level, and add some skills like Knowledge (architecture & engineering), Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. to their list. (But then, in my perfect world, the new minimum would be 4 skill points per level, with Bards and Rogues having more.)

5) Fighter, to my ear, is as lame as a name as 'Magic-User.' I'd change the name to Soldier or Warrior (and, in the latter case, the name of the NPC class to 'Fighting-Man' or something). Sometimes it's not how you feel, but how you *look.*

6) Fighters would have the *option* of trading in some of their starting armor / shield proficiencies, for use in games where that sort of thing isn't going to come into play (desert settings, swashbuckling builds, etc.). Giving up heavy armor proficiency and tower shields grants a permanant +1 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up medium armor proficiency and heavy shields grants a total +2 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up proficiency with light armor and light shields grants a total +4 dodge bonus to AC. These bonuses only apply when you are not wearing armor of the prohibited kind, so that if you gain proficiency from another class (or later purchase it through a Feat), you do not gain these dodge bonuses in armor beyond the rated level. These dodge bonuses to AC can be used for the swap-outs mentioned in option 3.

This is more of an 'Alternate Class Feature' thing, than something every Fighter is going to care about, but is at least a minor bandage for the Fighter who has a more swashbuckler-style in mind (or whose campaign is going to keep him from ever wearing heavy armor anyway).

7) In lieu of an iterative attack, a Fighter will have the option to put all of his force into one attack. The base damage of the weapon is multiplied by the number of iterative attacks he would have been eligible for, and he adds his bonuses afterwards normally. So an 11th level Fighter with a greatsword that normally inflicts 2d6+9 damage with hits at +11/+6/+1 BAB, can take a single swing at +11 that does 6d6+9. The idea predates the Vital Strike feat, and becomes a base class ability (although the Feat can still exist for Paladins, Barbarians, etc. to use).

8) Fighters can use their Dex modifier in place of their Strength modifier with light weapons automatically. Weapon Finesse is for those other guys.

Alternately, I've seen GMs just make the ability to use Dex instead of Str a general feature of light weapons *for everyone,* but for a GM who doesn't feel this generous, it should still be a class feature for Fighters, who go to soldiering school to learn not to swing that dagger or rapier the exact same way they swing a greatclub or halberd.

.
So, your basic 'Soldier' would end up with more skills, the ability to perform a sort of Combat Expertise / Power Attack shuffle on the fly, a bonus to damage that will only increase as he goes up in level, and a better AC than a similarly armored Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian or Cleric, as well as having the Vital Strike feat as a class ability.

It doesn't give the fighter the ability to fly, or hack through walls of force, or anything that just flat-out doesn't fit what a highly-trained soldier should be able to do, IMO, succeeded at making the fighter more 'fighter-y' and better able to perform in that specific niche, with more options, more flexibility and better able to deal with things like damage reduction, high AC foes, etc.

.
What these ideas do not cover, that I've seen above and agree are problematic, is the lack of Fighter ability to 'tank.' I don't like the taunt / aggro management aspect much, and would prefer some sort of bodyguard ability to get AoOs on anyone attacking an ally within Reach, punishing an attacker that attempts to get around them and whack at the softer targets.

Such a trait should ideally be a class ability, and not a feat, although it should *also* be a feat, since it's entirely in-keeping for a Monk or Paladin to serve in a bodyguard role, and this feat would be great for them.

[Eldan]

What fighters need really isn't more numerical boni: a well-built fighter is already more than able to finish something off in one attack. What he needs is more battlefield control and options.

So, a few suggestions:

1) More defenses than just AC, HP and fortitude: Iron Heart Surge has been suggested, and it's a good thing, a fighter could of course just learn that maneuver via the feat, but that's not what we are doing here. Things like slippery mind, mettle and so on are a good start, but one of the easiest ways of shutting down fighters is with various barriers: solid fog, walls, forcecage.
How about if a fighter could bullrush his way through solid fog and sunder a force cage? That sounds like an interesting feat tree, at least.

2) Battlefield control: trip, bull rush and friends really are just the start. They are nice, but there should be more. The knight has the ability to create difficult terrain around him. How about giving something similar to the fighter? What if the fighter could corner someone effectively without having to resort to chain-trippery?
Possible ways to achive that: have a way of making tumbling past him more difficult. Stop foes with an AoO. Knock foes back with attacks, similar to the knockback feat. (Suggestion: make a feat tree starting from Power attack and Bull rush: whenever you power attack for X points, gain a bull rush attempt to push them back five feet. Follow up feat allows you to follow with a five-foot step.) I wouldn't force enemies to attack the fighter, to me that sounds too much like a computer game mechanic or mind control. If the fighter doesn't appear threatening, the enemies should try to move around him and attack the squishies. The fighter's job is to stop them from doing that.

3) Options: rogues have the nifty option, with the right splat books, to trade their sneak attack damage for status effects: hamstring someone, blind them, punch them in the throat. Aren't fighters supposed to be combat masters? Perhaps not with the finesse of punching someone's throat, but why can't a fighter break someone's legs with a warhammer to slow them down?

Edit:
In response to the poster above me:
I'm not sure if the dexterity and finesse fighting should be for the fighter class. We have the Swashbuckler, rogue, scout, swordsage and monk for that kind of thing. I think instead of enabling the fighter to move into their niche slightly, we should give him his own.

[Ashtagon]

In terms of niche, I'd rather the fighter be firmly in the "heavy armour" mould, and leave the "light armour" zone to rogues, scouts, and swashbucklers. Similarly, he should be in the melee zone, with ranged attacks left to rangers, scouts, and rogues.

I don't want to see more fighter feats to enable the fighter to do all the cool stuff. In order to be competent at his core role of killing things, he already needs to spend all his feats, and adding more feats to buy just spreads him thinner and he ends up not being fully-effective in any of them.

I rather like the game mechanic used by the knight and bard classes. Basically, give the fighter (class level) uses per day of his special features. One use could:

* Allow a single re-roll of a save, one round after the save was failed. This does not stack with similar abilities that can grant a re-roll.
* As an immediate action (ie. even when it is not his turn), allow the fighter to make a single attack at his full bab.
* As an immediate action, when an adjacent ally is attacked, allow the fighter to instantly take the place of that ally, and take that attack in place of the ally. The ally moves to a space of the fighter's choice that is within 5 feet of his original location (including the fighter's original location, if desired).


* Give the fighter a +1 bonus on sunder attack and damage rolls, and Climb, Jump, and Swim skill checks. This bonus lasts for 3 + his Strength modifier rounds (minimum one round), and increases by +1 point for every full three fighter levels (DR 2/- at 3rd level, 3/- at 6th level, 4/- at 9th level, etc).
* Allow the fighter to extend his reach by 5 feet for a number of rounds equal to 3 + his Dexterity bonus (minimum one round).
* Give the fighter DR1/- for a number of rounds equal to 3 + his Constitution modifier (minimum one round). This DR increases by +1 point for every full three fighter levels (DR 2/- at 3rd level, 3/- at 6th level, 4/- at 9th level, etc).
* Allow the fighter to grant his shield bonus (along with any enhancement bonus his shield may have) to all adjacent allies, for a number of rounds equal to 3 + his Wisdom bonus (minimum one round). (Wisdom because it reflects his ability to watch things despite distractions).
* (Something that plays on his Intelligence bonus).
* (Something that plays on his Charisma bonus).

[Eldan]

One thing I don't agree with:
Feats. Sure there are a ton of feats out there. But the fighter gets, during his career, 11 bonus feats, in addition to his normal 7 feats and possible human bonus feat. The longest feat chains have perhaps what, six, seven feats, and those are rare. There's tripping, whirlwind attack and shock-trooper leap-attacking. That means that, sooner or later, the fighter will take a second feat chain, or several more.
What I'd like to see would be more long and branching feat trees, so that the fighter actually gets to do something meaningful with them, instead of taking Greater Weapon Focus and that kind of nonsense which he doesn't really need at all. Why not create a chain of ten feats all building up on the framework of Improved Bullrush, Combat Reflexes or another basic fighter feat?
We could then still fill the dead levels between the bonus feats with static boni.

[Runestar]

The problem with the feats is not their quality but the fact that they don't scale at all. Even first level spells become better as the mage gains levels, why not fighter feats? Make them scale with BAB and you are in a much better shape!

Yah, but who uses 1st lv spells at 17th lv? To be fair, there are some spells which continue to remain useful regardless of your lv such as ray of enfeeblement, but otherwise, most become useless due to too low saves or damage. Your 9th lv spells effectively replace your 1st lv spells, you should rarely ever be in a situation where you find yourself falling back on them (especially with the advent of reserve feats from complete mage).

Same for feats - I have always thought that the higher lv feats would effectively serve as upgrades (and thus supersede them). For example, bounding assault renders spring attack moot, and is in turn made useless by rapid blitz, but I consider it an investment rather than a waste.

[NineThePuma]

I'd want some combination of the following as options;

1) A flat damage bonus, equal to half class level (+1 at 1st, +2 at 3rd, up to +10 at 19th). This would apply to melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks or even unarmed attacks, if the Fighter had Improved Unarmed Attack. This basically is stolen straight from the 1st edition Monk, who had a similar bonus to damage.

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

Option 1 would be some sort of flat defense bonus, similar to what is used by the Wheel of Time RPG.

Option 2 would be a form of 'armor optimization' that gives a Fighter (and only a Fighter) a +1 AC bonus when using a shield, another +1 AC bonus when wearing light armor, a +2 AC bonus when wearing medium armor or a +3 AC bonus when wearing heavy armor, as the Fighter's specialized training simply allows him to 'get more out of the armor' than another wearer. In this latter case, the bonuses would only show up at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th levels, respectively, so that a Paladin couldn't dip 1 level of Fighter to get a +4 AC when wearing fullplate and bearing a shield.

3) The ability to swap out attack bonus (from their BAB), damage bonus (from number one, above) and / or AC bonus (from option 2, above) similar to the effects of Power Attack or Combat Expertise, but without requiring the Fighter to take either of those Feats. The feats would remain in the game, for Paladins, Barbarians, Rogues, etc. to take.

Fighters would be treated as automatically having these feats (Combat Expertise, Power Attack) for the purposes of jockeying around the BAB, damage bonus and / or AC bonuses they get from their Fighter levels (and for the purposes of qualifying for Feats that require them as prerequisites).

So a 5th level Fighter would have BAB +5, a Damage Bonus of +3 and a potential +3 to his Armor Class (if wearing heavy armor), and could reduce any of those numbers to add to any of the others, although no bonus could more than double. This hypothetical Fighter could negate all +3 of his AC bonus to add +3 to his Damage Bonus for the round, or to add +3 to his Attack Bonus, depending on the situation. These adjustments would not be 'stackable' with the Combat Expertise / Power Attack adjustments, and those Feats would be worked up similar to the Pathfinder Power Attack, so that a Barbarian, Paladin, etc. taking Power Attack would have *less* flexibility in moving his numbers around than a Fighter.

4) Fighters would have 4 skill points / level, and add some skills like Knowledge (architecture & engineering), Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. to their list. (But then, in my perfect world, the new minimum would be 4 skill points per level, with Bards and Rogues having more.)

5) Fighter, to my ear, is as lame as a name as 'Magic-User.' I'd change the name to Soldier or Warrior (and, in the latter case, the name of the NPC class to 'Fighting-Man' or something). Sometimes it's not how you feel, but how you *look.*

6) Fighters would have the *option* of trading in some of their starting armor / shield proficiencies, for use in games where that sort of thing isn't going to come into play (desert settings, swashbuckling builds, etc.). Giving up heavy armor proficiency and tower shields grants a permanant +1 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up medium armor proficiency and heavy shields grants a total +2 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up proficiency with light armor and light shields grants a total +4 dodge bonus to AC. These bonuses only apply when you are not wearing armor of the prohibited kind, so that if you gain proficiency from another class (or later purchase it through a Feat), you do not gain these dodge bonuses in armor beyond the rated level. These dodge bonuses to AC can be used for the swap-outs mentioned in option 3.

This is more of an 'Alternate Class Feature' thing, than something every Fighter is going to care about, but is at least a minor bandage for the Fighter who has a more swashbuckler-style in mind (or whose campaign is going to keep him from ever wearing heavy armor anyway).

7) In lieu of an iterative attack, a Fighter will have the option to put all of his force into one attack. The base damage of the weapon is multiplied by the number of iterative attacks he would have been eligible for, and he adds his bonuses afterwards normally. So an 11th level Fighter with a greatsword that normally inflicts 2d6+9 damage with hits at +11/+6/+1 BAB, can take a single swing at +11 that does 6d6+9. The idea predates the Vital Strike feat, and becomes a base class ability (although the Feat can still exist for Paladins, Barbarians, etc. to use).

8) Fighters can use their Dex modifier in place of their Strength modifier with light weapons automatically. Weapon Finesse is for those other guys.

Alternately, I've seen GMs just make the ability to use Dex instead of Str a general feature of light weapons *for everyone,* but for a GM who doesn't feel this generous, it should still be a class feature for Fighters, who go to soldiering school to learn not to swing that dagger or rapier the exact same way they swing a greatclub or halberd.

.
So, your basic 'Soldier' would end up with more skills, the ability to perform a sort of Combat Expertise / Power Attack shuffle on the fly, a bonus to damage that will only increase as he goes up in level, and a better AC than a similarly armored Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian or Cleric, as well as having the Vital Strike feat as a class ability.

It doesn't give the fighter the ability to fly, or hack through walls of force, or anything that just flat-out doesn't fit what a highly-trained soldier should be able to do, IMO, succeeded at making the fighter more 'fighter-y' and better able to perform in that specific niche, with more options, more flexibility and better able to deal with things like damage reduction, high AC foes, etc.

.
What these ideas do not cover, that I've seen above and agree are problematic, is the lack of Fighter ability to 'tank.' I don't like the taunt / aggro management aspect much, and would prefer some sort of bodyguard ability to get AoOs on anyone attacking an ally within Reach, punishing an attacker that attempts to get around them and whack at the softer targets.

Such a trait should ideally be a class ability, and not a feat, although it should *also* be a feat, since it's entirely in-keeping for a Monk or Paladin to serve in a bodyguard role, and this feat would be great for them.

Effectively they receive a bunch of bonus feats as extras right from the get go?I like that thought. Actually, make some things scale more and give specific bonus feats (like how monk gets either or choices) and the weapon focus tree for free...

[NineThePuma]

Alternately, feats upgrade over time to the next part of the tree, as he gains levels and meets prerequisites; he gets Two Weapon Fighting and it will AUTOMATICALLY give him every TWF feat he meets the prereqs for, max of one per level.

[Runestar]

If it is not too much trouble, could I trouble anyone planning to quote lengthy posts to hide them in the spoiler box? Perhaps it has been a long day and I am more tired than I realise, but I personally find it annoying to have to scroll through so many pages of an entry I have already read, only to see such a short response.

For instance, Set's entry could be consolidated thusly.

Spoiler

Show

I'd want some combination of the following as options;

1) A flat damage bonus, equal to half class level (+1 at 1st, +2 at 3rd, up to +10 at 19th). This would apply to melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks or even unarmed attacks, if the Fighter had Improved Unarmed Attack. This basically is stolen straight from the 1st edition Monk, who had a similar bonus to damage.

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

Option 1 would be some sort of flat defense bonus, similar to what is used by the Wheel of Time RPG.

Option 2 would be a form of 'armor optimization' that gives a Fighter (and only a Fighter) a +1 AC bonus when using a shield, another +1 AC bonus when wearing light armor, a +2 AC bonus when wearing medium armor or a +3 AC bonus when wearing heavy armor, as the Fighter's specialized training simply allows him to 'get more out of the armor' than another wearer. In this latter case, the bonuses would only show up at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th levels, respectively, so that a Paladin couldn't dip 1 level of Fighter to get a +4 AC when wearing fullplate and bearing a shield.

3) The ability to swap out attack bonus (from their BAB), damage bonus (from number one, above) and / or AC bonus (from option 2, above) similar to the effects of Power Attack or Combat Expertise, but without requiring the Fighter to take either of those Feats. The feats would remain in the game, for Paladins, Barbarians, Rogues, etc. to take.

Fighters would be treated as automatically having these feats (Combat Expertise, Power Attack) for the purposes of jockeying around the BAB, damage bonus and / or AC bonuses they get from their Fighter levels (and for the purposes of qualifying for Feats that require them as prerequisites).

So a 5th level Fighter would have BAB +5, a Damage Bonus of +3 and a potential +3 to his Armor Class (if wearing heavy armor), and could reduce any of those numbers to add to any of the others, although no bonus could more than double. This hypothetical Fighter could negate all +3 of his AC bonus to add +3 to his Damage Bonus for the round, or to add +3 to his Attack Bonus, depending on the situation. These adjustments would not be 'stackable' with the Combat Expertise / Power Attack adjustments, and those Feats would be worked up similar to the Pathfinder Power Attack, so that a Barbarian, Paladin, etc. taking Power Attack would have *less* flexibility in moving his numbers around than a Fighter.

4) Fighters would have 4 skill points / level, and add some skills like Knowledge (architecture & engineering), Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. to their list. (But then, in my perfect world, the new minimum would be 4 skill points per level, with Bards and Rogues having more.)

5) Fighter, to my ear, is as lame as a name as 'Magic-User.' I'd change the name to Soldier or Warrior (and, in the latter case, the name of the NPC class to 'Fighting-Man' or something). Sometimes it's not how you feel, but how you *look.*

6) Fighters would have the *option* of trading in some of their starting armor / shield proficiencies, for use in games where that sort of thing isn't going to come into play (desert settings, swashbuckling builds, etc.). Giving up heavy armor proficiency and tower shields grants a permanant +1 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up medium armor proficiency and heavy shields grants a total +2 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up proficiency with light armor and light shields grants a total +4 dodge bonus to AC. These bonuses only apply when you are not wearing armor of the prohibited kind, so that if you gain proficiency from another class (or later purchase it through a Feat), you do not gain these dodge bonuses in armor beyond the rated level. These dodge bonuses to AC can be used for the swap-outs mentioned in option 3.

This is more of an 'Alternate Class Feature' thing, than something every Fighter is going to care about, but is at least a minor bandage for the Fighter who has a more swashbuckler-style in mind (or whose campaign is going to keep him from ever wearing heavy armor anyway).

7) In lieu of an iterative attack, a Fighter will have the option to put all of his force into one attack. The base damage of the weapon is multiplied by the number of iterative attacks he would have been eligible for, and he adds his bonuses afterwards normally. So an 11th level Fighter with a greatsword that normally inflicts 2d6+9 damage with hits at +11/+6/+1 BAB, can take a single swing at +11 that does 6d6+9. The idea predates the Vital Strike feat, and becomes a base class ability (although the Feat can still exist for Paladins, Barbarians, etc. to use).

8) Fighters can use their Dex modifier in place of their Strength modifier with light weapons automatically. Weapon Finesse is for those other guys.

Alternately, I've seen GMs just make the ability to use Dex instead of Str a general feature of light weapons *for everyone,* but for a GM who doesn't feel this generous, it should still be a class feature for Fighters, who go to soldiering school to learn not to swing that dagger or rapier the exact same way they swing a greatclub or halberd.

.
So, your basic 'Soldier' would end up with more skills, the ability to perform a sort of Combat Expertise / Power Attack shuffle on the fly, a bonus to damage that will only increase as he goes up in level, and a better AC than a similarly armored Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian or Cleric, as well as having the Vital Strike feat as a class ability.

It doesn't give the fighter the ability to fly, or hack through walls of force, or anything that just flat-out doesn't fit what a highly-trained soldier should be able to do, IMO, succeeded at making the fighter more 'fighter-y' and better able to perform in that specific niche, with more options, more flexibility and better able to deal with things like damage reduction, high AC foes, etc.

.
What these ideas do not cover, that I've seen above and agree are problematic, is the lack of Fighter ability to 'tank.' I don't like the taunt / aggro management aspect much, and would prefer some sort of bodyguard ability to get AoOs on anyone attacking an ally within Reach, punishing an attacker that attempts to get around them and whack at the softer targets.

Such a trait should ideally be a class ability, and not a feat, although it should *also* be a feat, since it's entirely in-keeping for a Monk or Paladin to serve in a bodyguard role, and this feat would be great for them.

Alternately, feats upgrade over time to the next part of the tree, as he gains levels and meets prerequisites; he gets Two Weapon Fighting and it will AUTOMATICALLY give him every TWF feat he meets the prereqs for, max of one per level.

Followed by Kobold's response.

That said, what do people think of revising feats to give an additional bonus only for a fighter? Say improved crit normally doubles a weapon's threat range, but could also add another +1 threat range for every 4 fighter lvs? Cleave may let you cleave off an additional target for every 5 fighter lvs you have, power attack/expertise become more efficient?

It might be troublesome to have to add a small tag at the end of every fighter-oriented feat listing what added benefits you get as a fighter, but it might help resolve the apparent issue of other non-fighter melee classes being able to take higher-tier feats as well (for example, a warblade19/fighter1 may take weapon supremacy, and a barb18 can qualify for rapid blitz as well), so it doesn't really make them seem special or unique when taken by a fighter.

[Eldan]

What I have a problem with is the issue that a lot of these suggestions mainly give numerical bonuses, of which the fighter easily can gets hands full. Yes, weapon focus would be more useful if it gave a bonus of, let's say, 1+1/4 fighter levels.
However, what the fighter primarily needs are more combat options, not higher numbers. An Übercharger is perfectly able to kill a creature in one hit, if he can actually hit it. A tank can stay alive if people actually attack him, instead of shutting him down or ignoring him.
The list goes on. What the fighter needs are more options.

To which I'd like to add a bit more on class design: to me, a class is interesting if it doesn't just present a rigid framework, but allows you several options within the class.
What I mean by this? Look at, let's say, the barbarian. He has an interesting mechanic, rage, which gets stronger as he levels. Apart from that, he also gains a few small boni, and a minor ability or two. But he doesn't get to choose any of them.
A wizard, on the other hand gets to choose a specialization, bonus feats and, every time he levels up or gets his hands on a scroll, his spells. He even gets different ones every day depending on what he prepares.
That means that, to me, the wizard is inherently more interesting. A barbarian is customizable mainly over which feats he chooses, while a wizard has the additional option of building almost entirely different characters just by learning different spells. You see a barbarian, you know "guy hits hard". You see a wizard and think "Save-or-die? Area control? Direct damage? Minions? Trickery?"

[Roderick_BR]

Yeah, I can see a number of feats benefiting from that. The WF/WS feats could become quite powerful, Iron Will might be a better option, Dodge could be made useful. But what about feats that grant abilities, rather than static bonuses? It costs my Fighter 9% of my entire class' abilities to be able to wield a spiked chain, or wield two weapons (more, if I want more than one attack with the second weapon). Would "greater" feats (WF/WS, TWF, etc.) become obsolete or unnecessary (not that that's a bad thing)? What about feats that already scale, like Power Attack?

In a way, I like that better than just adding more feats, since there are some nice options out there that no one uses because they simply aren't powerful enough at higher levels (Iron Will, for example). It still doesn't give the Fighter many new options, though - just better versions of the feats that are already available.

I've seen several takes on that, and it would be awesome. Have static bonuses increase when you have better BAB. Greater versions would either be removed for lack of need, or ones that grant more options would be mixed with the default ones, giving extra abilities as you level up. Power Attack is an example of strong feat that needs no change.

About the leader thing, I don't like the idea of making it a default feature of the fighter. Some players don't want to be leaders, lead people, attract followers, etc, they just want to hit things in the face, and be good at it.
A new serie of feats or a prestige class (that is basically a pre-set of class features that you choose to enter) would work better.

I'd say we could look into pathfinder's fighter, that gave a good step in the right direction.

And about ToB, since people still say the maneuver system is just spellcasting: Someone already mentioned here in the forum that we should avoid limited use abilities (2 times a day, once every encounter, etc), so I think it's a good thing to keep in mind.

[Bergor Terraf]

Every class in the game is balanced around 2 things : class abilities (A) and Feats (B), giving A+B. The only class ability of the fighter has is even more feats. So basicly, he has B+B. Unfortunatly, A+B does not equal B+B.

When seeing that, the first reaction anyone has is to try to boost the power of feats (by changing them or creating new ones), but it has the side effect of also boosting the B side of the equation for everyone.

So why not go all the way? Give the fighter an A. Take those "Super Feats" and make the fighter be able to choose among them as a special ability (like what the rogue gets starting at level 10). It will keep the spirit of the "piecing together" of feats, but keep it out of reach of other classes. That will allow us to better balance these abilities without fear of giving a power boost where it is not needed.

These "Super Feats" could be new abilities, but also powered up version of fighter feats while keeping the normal feats still available to other class. This would strengthen the idea that, even though other classes can dable in the same areas, it dosen't compare with the focused training of the fighter.

[demidracolich]

Nitpicking, crusaders have indomitable soul, not mettle, though they both do the same thing.

[demidracolich]

Another thing, incorporating maneuvers is a good way of balancing fighter, many people have tried it but there is still no really good fighter with maneuvers.

[itastelikelove]

Lots of good stuff today! Let's see how concise i can make this...

On Saves: Apalala, I like both of your ideas. Will is probably more important for most fighters, but having options makes everything more fun. There's still a lot of debate on the matter, but personally, I would prefer to avoid per day or per encounter abilities. I would prefer something more like the Rogue's Slippery Mind ability, where you get one retry per spell or effect.

On "threat"/"aggro": I think Apalala and Set have the right idea. Threat/aggro seem very artificial to me, and forcing an enemy to target you comes awfully close to magic. Which we don't want. I'd rather punish people for ignoring Fighters than force them not to.

On static bonuses: A lot of people seem to be against giving Fighters more static bonuses of any kind. I agree that it's not actually going to fix anything, but really, how could you say no to that? Also, more importantly, if they come from a class ability, you can have another ability that lets you trade those points in for other benefits.

On low-level abilities: Try not to get carried away. Any ability you give out at first level should be considered to be available to any other class. A one-level dip is hardly an inconvenience at all, if you are getting the equivalent of 3-6 feats for it.

On battlefield control: yes, yes, yes, and more, more, more. If a Fighter is going to protect his party, this is almost definitely how it will be done.

On extended feat trees: An interesting idea. Keeps most other classes out without a contrived "Fighters Only" requirement. This could possibly be used very effectively, but there are still a couple of drawbacks...First, you wouldn't get anything new until mid-to-high levels. And second, you would probably end up with one build per feat tree, which means fewer customization oprions for the player.

On the Fighter's niche: while the non-magical-heavily-armored-tank/battlefield controller niche is pretty wide open, and perfect for the Fighter, I'm not sure we should commit to leaving out lightweight and ranged builds. Skill and training are useful in any style of combat.

On the ToB: Maneuvers are fine and dandy, but giving them to a Fighter is just reinventing the wheel - the Warblade already exists. A few maneuvers in addition to some other good class abilities could be effective, though.

On the various class abilities: There were a lot of good ideas out there. Enough that I don't feel like talking about them specifically tonight! Seriously, though. I like 'em. Good work, folks!

Nitpicking, crusaders have indomitable soul, not mettle, though they both do the same thing.

That's what I get for trying to save time by not looking stuff up...

On Quote etiquette: I agree with Runestar:

Spoiler

Show

If it is not too much trouble, could I trouble anyone planning to quote lengthy posts to hide them in the spoiler box? Perhaps it has been a long day and I am more tired than I realise, but I personally find it annoying to have to scroll through so many pages of an entry I have already read, only to see such a short response.

For instance, Set's entry could be consolidated thusly.

Spoiler

Show

I'd want some combination of the following as options;

1) A flat damage bonus, equal to half class level (+1 at 1st, +2 at 3rd, up to +10 at 19th). This would apply to melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks or even unarmed attacks, if the Fighter had Improved Unarmed Attack. This basically is stolen straight from the 1st edition Monk, who had a similar bonus to damage.

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

Option 1 would be some sort of flat defense bonus, similar to what is used by the Wheel of Time RPG.

Option 2 would be a form of 'armor optimization' that gives a Fighter (and only a Fighter) a +1 AC bonus when using a shield, another +1 AC bonus when wearing light armor, a +2 AC bonus when wearing medium armor or a +3 AC bonus when wearing heavy armor, as the Fighter's specialized training simply allows him to 'get more out of the armor' than another wearer. In this latter case, the bonuses would only show up at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th levels, respectively, so that a Paladin couldn't dip 1 level of Fighter to get a +4 AC when wearing fullplate and bearing a shield.

3) The ability to swap out attack bonus (from their BAB), damage bonus (from number one, above) and / or AC bonus (from option 2, above) similar to the effects of Power Attack or Combat Expertise, but without requiring the Fighter to take either of those Feats. The feats would remain in the game, for Paladins, Barbarians, Rogues, etc. to take.

Fighters would be treated as automatically having these feats (Combat Expertise, Power Attack) for the purposes of jockeying around the BAB, damage bonus and / or AC bonuses they get from their Fighter levels (and for the purposes of qualifying for Feats that require them as prerequisites).

So a 5th level Fighter would have BAB +5, a Damage Bonus of +3 and a potential +3 to his Armor Class (if wearing heavy armor), and could reduce any of those numbers to add to any of the others, although no bonus could more than double. This hypothetical Fighter could negate all +3 of his AC bonus to add +3 to his Damage Bonus for the round, or to add +3 to his Attack Bonus, depending on the situation. These adjustments would not be 'stackable' with the Combat Expertise / Power Attack adjustments, and those Feats would be worked up similar to the Pathfinder Power Attack, so that a Barbarian, Paladin, etc. taking Power Attack would have *less* flexibility in moving his numbers around than a Fighter.

4) Fighters would have 4 skill points / level, and add some skills like Knowledge (architecture & engineering), Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. to their list. (But then, in my perfect world, the new minimum would be 4 skill points per level, with Bards and Rogues having more.)

5) Fighter, to my ear, is as lame as a name as 'Magic-User.' I'd change the name to Soldier or Warrior (and, in the latter case, the name of the NPC class to 'Fighting-Man' or something). Sometimes it's not how you feel, but how you *look.*

6) Fighters would have the *option* of trading in some of their starting armor / shield proficiencies, for use in games where that sort of thing isn't going to come into play (desert settings, swashbuckling builds, etc.). Giving up heavy armor proficiency and tower shields grants a permanant +1 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up medium armor proficiency and heavy shields grants a total +2 dodge bonus to AC. Giving up proficiency with light armor and light shields grants a total +4 dodge bonus to AC. These bonuses only apply when you are not wearing armor of the prohibited kind, so that if you gain proficiency from another class (or later purchase it through a Feat), you do not gain these dodge bonuses in armor beyond the rated level. These dodge bonuses to AC can be used for the swap-outs mentioned in option 3.

This is more of an 'Alternate Class Feature' thing, than something every Fighter is going to care about, but is at least a minor bandage for the Fighter who has a more swashbuckler-style in mind (or whose campaign is going to keep him from ever wearing heavy armor anyway).

7) In lieu of an iterative attack, a Fighter will have the option to put all of his force into one attack. The base damage of the weapon is multiplied by the number of iterative attacks he would have been eligible for, and he adds his bonuses afterwards normally. So an 11th level Fighter with a greatsword that normally inflicts 2d6+9 damage with hits at +11/+6/+1 BAB, can take a single swing at +11 that does 6d6+9. The idea predates the Vital Strike feat, and becomes a base class ability (although the Feat can still exist for Paladins, Barbarians, etc. to use).

8) Fighters can use their Dex modifier in place of their Strength modifier with light weapons automatically. Weapon Finesse is for those other guys.

Alternately, I've seen GMs just make the ability to use Dex instead of Str a general feature of light weapons *for everyone,* but for a GM who doesn't feel this generous, it should still be a class feature for Fighters, who go to soldiering school to learn not to swing that dagger or rapier the exact same way they swing a greatclub or halberd.

.
So, your basic 'Soldier' would end up with more skills, the ability to perform a sort of Combat Expertise / Power Attack shuffle on the fly, a bonus to damage that will only increase as he goes up in level, and a better AC than a similarly armored Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian or Cleric, as well as having the Vital Strike feat as a class ability.

It doesn't give the fighter the ability to fly, or hack through walls of force, or anything that just flat-out doesn't fit what a highly-trained soldier should be able to do, IMO, succeeded at making the fighter more 'fighter-y' and better able to perform in that specific niche, with more options, more flexibility and better able to deal with things like damage reduction, high AC foes, etc.

.
What these ideas do not cover, that I've seen above and agree are problematic, is the lack of Fighter ability to 'tank.' I don't like the taunt / aggro management aspect much, and would prefer some sort of bodyguard ability to get AoOs on anyone attacking an ally within Reach, punishing an attacker that attempts to get around them and whack at the softer targets.

Such a trait should ideally be a class ability, and not a feat, although it should *also* be a feat, since it's entirely in-keeping for a Monk or Paladin to serve in a bodyguard role, and this feat would be great for them.

Alternately, feats upgrade over time to the next part of the tree, as he gains levels and meets prerequisites; he gets Two Weapon Fighting and it will AUTOMATICALLY give him every TWF feat he meets the prereqs for, max of one per level.

Followed by Kobold's response.

If it's more than a couple of paragraphs, please trim it or spoiler it, for the sake of thread hygiene.

I'm sure I've missed something, but it's pretty late, so...yeah...maybe later?

[Eldan]

On feat trees:

Look at it like this:
A rogue or barbarian gets seven or eight feats over his career.
The ranger gets that, plus 3 bonus combat feats and two utility feats.
So, if we take a feat tree and make it seven feats long?
Then the fighter, getting those 8 and 11 bonus feats, can take 2 of them and still have several feats left. The barbarian can heavily specialize and get one. So we get a fighter two chains of combat abilities where the barbarian has one and rage. That's a good thing, it's supposed to be what he's good at. However, with only the feats, the fighter has nothing exclusive to him, so he needs more. That should be where the specific fighter class abilities come in.
The game has a few feats so far which only the fighter can take. That's one way to do it, but, honestly, that's more a bad patch on the fighter not getting anything special.

Now, the question should of course be:

What is the fighter supposed to be able to do what no one else can? Think of it like this: the barbarian can rage, no one else can. The rogue can backstab, the druid can shapeshift. They all also can do other things, which the other classes get as well. The fighter needs something like that.

[Yora]

I think using weapon groups might be a nice thing for fighter players. Even if Weapon Focus and Specialization aren't that good, applying the bonus to all swords instead of just longswords allows melee characters to be much more flexible.

[Jota]

I don't want to rain on anyone parade because I like a lot of what is being thrown about here, but as you might guess, many of these have already been done. In particular, the Tome Fighter (by Frank and K) incorporates a lot of these (commander, reach, ability to negate actions, other/multiple uses for/of swift and immediate actions, scaling feats, versatility, saves, so yeah, quite a bit). The relevant [Combat] feats are here. The level of balance is supposed to be a transmuter wizard, or so I've been told, so it's quite strong, but it might give you a few ideas or even just give you an end product, if you're willing to work with something that capable.