[3.5] What's the point of the Fighter?

[Skorj]

What's the point of the Fighter? Not a rhetorical question. A favorite passtime around here seems to be suggesting ways to balance classes in 3.5, but we seem to do a lot of jumping ahead to mechanics before we define the goals.

So, I want to ask a different sort of class-balance question: what would a tier 2 fighter look like? Assume we don’t want a gish, that we want to keep the “just physical attacks” flavor of the class, not a part-caster, or highly-mobile skill monkey. What combat role could the fighter fill; what situations could he be the best class for?

First let’s review what the top-tier classes can do in combat that makes them so useful:

1. Strong offense: various save-or-lose spells, that can be optimized for high DCs and chosen to exploit the weak save of an opponent.
2. Highly mobile, with fly and teleport and the like.
3. Strong defense, with invisibility, blur, mirror image, and similar high-miss-chance spells.
4. Good battlefield control spells, allowing the opponents to be defeated in detail, or simple area denial.
5. Ability to summon, or transform into, creatures with strong melee power. The whole “transform into a bear that rides a bear while summoning bears” thing.
6. Powerful buffs, but that often works best if you buff the fighter, so that’s more of a tag-team thing and is actually one good role for a fighter.

So, if we were designing a new fighter class from scratch, what could we give it that keeps the spirit of the classic fighter:

1. Strong offense through really high HP damage. Balancing HP damage vs save-or-lose is just a matter of math, and feats can extend this to multiple weaker targets as well as one strong opponent. Always useful, and situationally more or less useful than SoL.
2. Mobility is the classic fighter’s biggest weakness in 3.5, often rendering him useless unless kitted up with enough magic items where he uses the same tactics as the casters (which works, but loses the flavor). I think Iron Heart Surge is sort of the way to go here, since you can give the fighter some sort of immunity to mobility denial spells without changing the classic flavor, but that’s a partial fix at best.
3. Defense of a sort other than “hard to hit” seems appropriate here (high AC is perfect against mooks, but the Mages defenses against strong single opponents don’t seem right for a fighter). Tons of HP would be a good start, but what to do about SoLs targeting weak saves? Again, some sort of Iron Heart Surge-like ability to shrug off SoLs seems like the way to go. A fighter should takes the hits and keep coming; that seems key.
4. There are already decent battlefield control melee builds with trip and lockdown. Desperately in need of re-fluffing IMO (spending all combat tripping people just doesn’t seem right), but mechanically useful, and different from a casters battlefield control in tactics and flavor, so that’s good.
5. Finally, how to keep a fighter better at his role (whatever that turns out to be) than summoned or transformed creatures? I don’t know where to start on this one, but to be better than a bear that rides a bear while summoning bears, the fighter has to have something going for him beyond his HP damage offense!.

To be tier 2 or 3, you need both abilities that are strong in a variety of situations, and encounter-winning abilities. What sort of encounters should a fighter be able to win just by showing up, unless the DM gets very clever? I think if we had a good list of these, the rest of it would come together.

• The first is clearly “holding ground” – modern infantry may be outclassed in mobility and firepower by a variety of technological wonders, but it still can’t be beat for holding territory. This seems like the most natural strength of a low-mobility class.
• Another that might work is “protecting the weak NPC”. Everyone hates escort missions, but if you give the fighter the ability to intercept attacks, he could be key to them. (Many defensive spells that can be cast on others give a miss chance, which isn’t great for defending a commoner against a ton of attacks, and other defensive buffs would work even better if cast on a fighter who was blocking).
• Any better ideas in the playground?

If you can clearly define what you want a tier 2 fighter to look like, the mechanics of class balance can then be addressed, but is there a way to make him tier 2 without breaking the basic flavor of the class? What do you think?

[JoshuaZ]

If you can clearly define what you want a tier 2 fighter to look like, the mechanics of class balance can then be addressed, but is there a way to make him tier 2 without breaking the basic flavor of the class? What do you think?

Tome of Battle does this. The classes from there (the crusader, swordsage and warblade) are all T3. The warblade is closest in form to a fighter flavorwise. If you wanted to make it T2 you could probably just do so by gestalting it with the fighter. There are a number of fighter fixes floating around that you may want to take a look at.

[Thurbane]

...that time of week already?

How about this: give the Fighter good BAB, all good saves, 8 skill points/level, all skills as class skills, bonus feat every level, bonus feats can be any feat, not just Fighter bonus feats.

...and people will still say that he's nerfed compared to casters.

Here's my 2 cents...if you really think fighter is unusable as is...don't use it? Or as many, many people have suggested, use the Warblade instead. Or the Pathfinder Fighter. Or the Trailblazer Fighter. Or Frank & Ks tome Fighter. Or any of the other dozens of Fighter homebrews.

[Ravens_cry]

Some people don't want a thousand and one options. Some people like playing the character who does one thing, bash things with a big hunk of sharpened metal until it is destroyed.

[JoshuaZ]

...that time of week already?

I was surprised. I thought Thursday was monk day.

[lsfreak]

Tome of Battle does this. The classes from there (the crusader, swordsage and warblade) are all T3. The warblade is closest in form to a fighter flavorwise. If you wanted to make it T2 you could probably just do so by gestalting it with the fighter. There are a number of fighter fixes floating around that you may want to take a look at.

Gestalting with fighter probably isn't enough to make it T2; the difference between T2 and T3 is more than 'just a tier.' You'll need to throw in options like long and short-range teleport, flying, skill check boosters/abusers, charming-type things, divinations, area debuffing, pure utility abilities, etc. One of the hallmarks of T2, whether explicitly stated or not, is that many of their actions are trump cards - either the enemy has the single defense that negates it completely, or they flat-out lose. If it doesn't have the ability to turn into rocket tag at high levels, it's not T2.

[JoshuaZ]

Gestalting with fighter probably isn't enough to make it T2; the difference between T2 and T3 is more than 'just a tier.' You'll need to throw in options like long and short-range teleport, flying, skill check boosters/abusers, charming-type things, divinations, area debuffing, pure utility abilities, etc. One of the hallmarks of T2, whether explicitly stated or not, is that many of their actions are trump cards - either the enemy has the single defense that negates it completely, or they flat-out lose. If it doesn't have the ability to turn into rocket tag at high levels, it's not T2.

Well, the logic here for this gestalt working is that there are enough feats that you can pick that you can get stuff like short-range teleporting or close to it make no difference. In particular, you can use your extra feats to pick up some of the extra maneuvers and stances that are normally crusader or swordsage only that function as utility powers. Since the feats that give you extra maneuvers are often fighter bonus maneuvers this should work ok.

(Actually now that I think about this, there probably aren't enough to move it up to Tier 2 particularly because the feat that gives you an extra maneuver can only be taken 3 times which is going to severely limit how much you can do this.)

[Thurbane]

Actually, a serious question: if, as part of "fixing" the Fighter, you gave him 4 skill points/level, and expanded his skill list, what skills would you add? Spot & Listen seem like naturals, but what others would you add?

[SurlySeraph]

Let him choose his own class skills. Customization is his shtick, isn't it?

[Thurbane]

Hmm, interesting...like how the Expert NPC class does it? Not a bad idea at all.

[JKTrickster]

Some people don't want a thousand and one options. Some people like playing the character who does one thing, bash things with a big hunk of sharpened metal until it is destroyed.

Well IMHO that should be the barbarian class. To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained. If you just want mindless violence, why wouldn't you choose barbarian instead?

[Skorj]

Gestalting with fighter probably isn't enough to make it T2; the difference between T2 and T3 is more than 'just a tier.' You'll need to throw in options like long and short-range teleport, flying, skill check boosters/abusers, charming-type things, divinations, area debuffing, pure utility abilities, etc. One of the hallmarks of T2, whether explicitly stated or not, is that many of their actions are trump cards - either the enemy has the single defense that negates it completely, or they flat-out lose. If it doesn't have the ability to turn into rocket tag at high levels, it's not T2.

I think the key here is to that the fighter should be the trump card for some encounter types not so much opponent types. Sure, some people run D&D just as a combat simulator with no real goal to the combats, but I don't think that's the common case. I can see a fighter winning a "hold this ground" or "protect this weakling" encounter just by showing up, if given the right mechanics. What other sort of encounters fit the classic fighter flavor?

Well IMHO that should be the barbarian class. To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained. If you just want mindless violence, why wouldn't you choose barbarian instead?

I was struggling with how to say that, but I think you nailed it, thanks. Particularly, D&D mechanics have made using a shield nearly pointless, but that sure seems like it should be a significant part of being a fighter. Or more to the point, defending others as well as yourself when the need arises.

[JoshuaZ]

Actually, a serious question: if, as part of "fixing" the Fighter, you gave him 4 skill points/level, and expanded his skill list, what skills would you add? Spot & Listen seem like naturals, but what others would you add?

Probably a Knowledge skill of his choice. This lets you simulate fighters who grew up in the woods, or who grew up in court, or who grew up defending mages.

Almost certainly give Tumble because it has direct combat benefits.

I'd like to give Hide and Move Silently since soldiers sometimes need to sneak, but people might feel that that's stepping too much on the rogue's toes.


Edit: Also note that there's also Jane's fighter fix which does a decent job of making a fighter not stink but still doesn't by itself move up to T2.

[Ravens_cry]

Well IMHO that should be the barbarian class. To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained. If you just want mindless violence, why wouldn't you choose barbarian instead?

Because you don't want to play mindless violence that gets angry for their power? You want to play Lobo, not Bruce Banner.

[thompur]

I like the idea of 4 skill pts/ level, add 1 knowledge skill to his list, any 2 untrained, and, for every character, 4 free craft/profession sk pts at first level for character history building, so you don't have to waste regular points to give your character some depth.

[holywhippet]

Keep in mind, the whole tier scheme is only relevant at high levels. A level 1 wizard is not awesomely powerful. If anything they are behind the fighter as they can only crank out a couple of spells wheras the fighter can dish out a lot more damage and surivive a lot longer due to HP, AC and attack bonuses.

If a campaign never goes past level 5 or so, then a fighter is still going to be a strong character for the entire campaign.

[JoshuaZ]

Keep in mind, the whole tier scheme is only relevant at high levels. A level 1 wizard is not awesomely powerful. If anything they are behind the fighter as they can only crank out a couple of spells wheras the fighter can dish out a lot more damage and surivive a lot longer due to HP, AC and attack bonuses.

If a campaign never goes past level 5 or so, then a fighter is still going to be a strong character for the entire campaign.

That's a good point. To use my earlier example of gestaling a warblade and a fighter, if one had a campaign that was going to stop before level 5, the wizard would look pathetic in comparison (although a druid would still hold their own).

[Chambers]

I've done some of these things with my Heroic Edition Fighter. However, I think asking the question " What sort of encounters should a fighter be able to win just by showing up, unless the DM gets very clever?" is not the right question to ask. No offense intended.

It's my opinion that no class should be able to end an encounter just by showing up. I think Tier 3 is the optimal level for balance and fair play. If you look at the 3.75 classes that came out, I think nearly all of them are around Tier 3. It looks like it took WoTC a couple years to understand their system, but I think they finally got the point near the end.

I think the key here is to that the fighter should be the trump card for some encounter types not so much opponent types.

I think this is a different, and better, question. Instead of asking how does the fighter win by default, we're asking when does the fighter excel?

I think the fighter should excel in situations where there is weapon combat (either melee or ranged). That's pretty much all D&D combats...so I'm saying that the Fighter should excel in pretty much all D&D combats. He shouldn't win all combats by default, but he should be one of the best combatants.

He should have abilities that not only enhance his abilities to attack and deal damage, but have abilities that protect him from attacks and damage. Currently, spellcasters are the Fighters best class ability, in that the spellcasters buff spells do for the fighter what the fighter should be able to do for himself. Or herself.

[Tyndmyr]

So, if we were designing a new fighter class from scratch, what could we give it t...

1. Open up tome of battle to Warblade.
2. Uncap sharpie.
3. Scribble "Fighter" over "Warblade"

Done.

[JoshuaZ]

1. Open up tome of battle to Warblade.
2. Uncap sharpie.
3. Scribble "Fighter" over "Warblade"

Done.

Well, and scribble out the silly fluff about warblades all being show-offs. But yeah, other than that...

[Ravens_cry]

I disagree. If D&d were PvP by default, I can see how self buffing would essential, but it's really not. Also, too much self buffing would feel to non-mundane for a Fighter, in my opinion.

[Tael]

The Warmarked is pretty much the only decent attempt to make a tier 2 fighter that I've seen. It does it pretty damn well too. The ToS team makes some good stuff.

[Reluctance]

If we're asking about the original concept, you'd have to rework feats to make them better while you rework spells to make them less gamebreaking. Feats were a big thing back when 3e was being released, a class meant to make the most of that mechanic wasn't a bad idea, it's just that feat trees didn't grow high enough or synergize well enough. And that most of the really nifty feats went to casters.

If we're talking about the highly trained combatant who owns the battlefield, TOB works best. If you're homebrewing, steal liberally from knights and monks if you like.

And if you're trying to build some paragon of simplicity for people who just want to roll dice without too many complications, you can't make it good without scuttling the whole game. The whole charm to casters is that they have all sorts of nifty options. The guy who can teleport away or turn invisible will always have an edge over the guy who can only swing a sword. You'd have to include mythic level abilities to even begin balancing things. At which point, the class moves away from simplicity towards a big bag of options.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, and scribble out the silly fluff about warblades all being show-offs. But yeah, other than that...

Tome of Battle has fluff?

Ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me they made a sequel to Highlander.

[Thurbane]

So, basically, what do people consider the main shortcoming(s) of the Fighter (when compared to similar melee classes, like the Barbarian or Warblade)? The most common ones I see are:

• Lack of unique class features (a lot of people do not consider bonus feats to be an actual, or largely worthwhile, class feature).
• Lack of versatility in combat.
• Lack of ability to contribute outside of combat (to be fair, this is common to most pure melee classes).
• Directly related to this: lack of skills (both skill points, and a very limited skill list).

The questions you really need to ask in relation to your own games are:

• Do these perceived/real shortcomings make the class undesiarble/unplayable in my games?
• Do I want a from-the-ground rebuild of the Fighter to address these shortcomings?
• Am I happy to simply drop the class in favor of another (like Warblade, or Barbarian)? (i.e. what's in a name).

[RufusCorvus]

This is my suggestion.

[Zodiac]

Frank and K's Tome Fighter is an example of a powerful fighter whose probably Tier 1.

EDIT: GAH! Ninja'd

[RufusCorvus]

In this case, don't you think FIGHTER'D! is somewhat more appropriate?

[Draz74]

"The point of the Fighter" is actually one of the biggest things I like about 4e. Yeah, a few of the 4e Fighter's powers are cheesy, but at least they still all feel nonmagical.

And 4e makes it clear: the point of the Fighter is to defend his teammates, and in addition to that goal (or in support of it), to be a good if not top-tier damage dealer.

The Fighter is one of the stronger classes in 4e ... and he looks good doing it.

EDIT: Side note -- Most of the Warblade's abilities are very mundane and appropriate for a Fighter re-write, but not all. Lightning Throw is as wuxia as it gets. Iron Heart Surge is kind of magical, too, unless you houserule it to free just the Warblade from effects rather than "ending" the effects. Earthstrike Quake is kind of borderline. And then there's the issue of the Warblade picking up magical-feeling Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, or Devoted Spirit maneuvers with a feat, more easily than non-initiator classes can.

[JoshuaZ]

EDIT: Side note -- Most of the Warblade's abilities are very mundane and appropriate for a Fighter re-write, but not all. Lightning Throw is as wuxia as it gets. Iron Heart Surge is kind of magical, too, unless you houserule it to free just the Warblade from effects rather than "ending" the effects. Earthstrike Quake is kind of borderline. And then there's the issue of the Warblade picking up magical-feeling Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, or Devoted Spirit maneuvers with a feat, more easily than non-initiator classes can.

A lot of Shadow Hand and Devoted Spirit can be fluffed to minimize supernatual elements if you want to. (Desert Wind is definitely harder although you could do something involving setting your blade on fire if you really wanted to). Note also that warblades don't actually get those maneuvers more easily than non-initiators, they just get the high level ones more easily (since they have higher initiator level). And it is easy if one wants to make a fighter without them to just have a warblade without those disciplines.

If I were to criticize stuff in the ToB system, I'd focus on the fact that there's no-supernatural teleporting which just makes no sense. But it isn't hard to fluff a warblade as a fighter if you choose the right maneuvers. Just don't choose the more supernatural schools.