Tier 1 fighter with buff to martial.

[Flik9999]

I am developing a tier 1 fighter in 3.5. That I will be running a campaighn with. First off though a few changes.

BAB: You use your full bonus on all attacks. (A level 6 fighter will get 2 attacks at +6 instead of +6/+1)
Two handed weapons: Add double your strength bonus to damage.
TWF: Add 100% your strenght bonus to off hand weapons.
Classes with martial weapon proficiency instead get 3 martial or exotic weapon proficiencies.
Skills: 4+int

Now for the fighter stuff.

Two weapon fighting: You make an extra attack for each attack you get from BAB. Need light weapon to get the -2/-2 penalty.

Improved 2 weapon fighting: You can use one handed weapons as if they were light.

greater 2 weapon fighting: No penalty from two weapon fighting

Weapon focus and specialization: Replaced with Weapon spec.
Greater Focus and specialization: Replaced with greater weapon spec.

Weapon spec
Requirment: Level 2 fighter
+2 to damage and hit.

Greater Weapon spec
Requirment: Level 5 fighter, weapon spec
+4 to damage and hit. Also get one additional attack.

Weapon mastery
Requirment: Level 10 fighter, greater weapon spec
+6 to damage and hit. Doubles critical threat (Which DOES stack with improved critical.)

High weapon mastery
Requirment level 15 fighter, Mastery.
+8 to damage and hit, weapon ignores DR. Cannot be disarmed.

Grand weapon mastery
Requirment: Level 20 fighter, high mastery
+10 to damage and hit, get 2 additional attacks with weapon. Critical threats are confirmed.


I am actually serious will this make fighters tier 1?

Edit** Oh yeah other full BAB class can take the fighter specific feats if they are 5 levels higher.(Eg a level 7 barbarian can take weapon spec and move onto greater spec at level 10)

[lunar2]

it would probably get them to T4, since they're high T5 already. good at 1 thing, but has difficulty contributing when that one thing isn't needed. they are good at dealing damage with weapons, but that's about it. they aren't even really good at that, since they still have no means of getting past miss chances, or dealing with creatures outside of melee range (or the reverse for archers, they can't deal with opponents in melee range). the fighter doesn't need higher to hit and damage numbers, he's already good at that. he needs better defenses, ability to mitigate miss chances, more mobility or enough feats to be good at both melee and ranged combat, and something to do outside of combat. give him all that, and he'll be t4 or t3. T1 is beyond the ability of any fighter style character. T1 characters can create their own demiplanes, summon/call/create armies, alter the fabric of reality, and a few other things, all in the same day. the next day, they can do the whole thing over again, or a double handful of other gamebreaking things.

[Garryl]

Kinda missing the point. Pure numerical/damage bonuses will never raise a class above Tier 3/4 (Tier 3 only if the class already had options and alternatives but was just numerically lackluster before). To be Tier 1, a class has to not only break the game, but do so in numerous ways, to turn the game world into something under your control, not the DM's. Killing things better, no matter how much better, just won't do that. It's like the difference between controlling a nuclear arsenal and controlling the economy, industry, and governments of the world.

[Realms of Chaos]

I'm sorry to say that all of your changes does not make for a tier 1 class. Literally no amount of making it better at fighting will make the fighter a tier 1 Technically, you could give the fighter a special ability to automatically kill anything it comes across (no saves or defenses) and it still wouldn't be tier 1 (broken as hell, maybe. Tier 1, no).

Tier 1 comes from incredible versatility. The wizard can outfight the fighter (even this one) if it wishes in single combat using the correct buffs. The wizard can also choose to blast large groups (if not optimized) or deliver crowd control that will decimate the allies anyways (solid fog, black tentacles, etc). The wizard can outright take control of his or her foes or create armies of minions to engage enemies with. The wizard can destroy entire economies, teleport away from any encounter, create entire demiplanes, and literally do whatever the character wants to do.

For this reason, tier 1 fighter has always been a bit of an oxymoron on these boards. On the bright side, however, it is generally accepted (at least around here) that aiming for tier one isn't something that's generally desirable.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Agreed. Tier 1 isn't just about numbers-- the tier system as much-- maybe even more-- about versatility than power. The tier 1 classes are the guys that get access to every spell on their lists. Every broken spell, every broken combo, every exploit-- these guys are capable of all of them. A T1 fighter basically needs access to an enormous list of abilities, one with comparable breath and power to spells.

Your changes are helpful, and might get the fighter into T4, but offer nowhere near the versatility needed to hit the "optimal" T3, much less the combination of breadth and depth of a T1 caster.

[Flik9999]

Ah I missed something out. Wizards/clerics/druids no longer get spells as they level up. Instead they have to hunt down a rare scroll to learn it. Yes that means that you could end up learning fireball at level 10.

Edit: How come in like final fantasy and games like that classes are balanced then?

[NichG]

Although arguably, a fighter that had the power to kill anything, even things that could not normally be killed or even targetted, would easily be Tier 1.

'The kingdom is at war? I kill Violence.' 'The undead are rising across the world? I kill Death - lets see how they like having no new recruits!'. 'You're injured? Let me kill that wound for you.'

[Flik9999]

A simple DM trick you can do to balance classes is make some monsters completely immune to magic. Or have dungeons that have constant "anti-magic" fields around it. Surely in that situation a mage would be t6 and a fighter t1?

What I was thinking of doing is making mages "Super specialised" as in only having access to one type of spells. Such as an illusionist or an "Evocanist"

Same with other spellcasters.

[Yitzi]

I am developing a tier 1 fighter in 3.5.

Any tier 1 fighter is no longer worthy of the name "fighter". The closest you get is Exalted, but even they are only tier 1 due to not really being fighters.

Your changes should make for a strong tier 4 (i.e. equivalent to tier 3 even though he's not technically a tier 3.) Although even then he probably should get boosts for if he wants to be an archer or a defensively oriented character as well.

If for each other aspect of D&D you made a class that's as good at that aspect as this is at combat, and you then made a class that can switch between all those different classes during an adventure, that last class would be a tier 1.

[Quellian-dyrae]

Ah I missed something out. Wizards/clerics/druids no longer get spells as they level up. Instead they have to hunt down a rare scroll to learn it. Yes that means that you could end up learning fireball at level 10.

That probably wouldn't change the tiers, strictly speaking, since I'm pretty sure they're more about potential power. It does make it much harder for casters to reach their potential in play, depending on how hard it is to find the scrolls. This could be a reasonable rule (if the DM uses it more to add control to what a caster can actually get, rather than letting them cherry pick the best spells at the local magic-mart). Or, it could be a stealth ban on casters (if the DM uses it to keep casters unable to make level-appropriate contributions).

Edit: How come in like final fantasy and games like that classes are balanced then?

Short version, the spells. A high level fighter in Final Fantasy hits for 9999 damage. A high level mage in Final Fantasy casts Ultima for...9999 damage.

Long version, how mages and fighters compare in video games (and any role playing game, really) will vary based on the underlying game mechanics; sometimes fighters will be better, sometimes mages, sometimes they'll be relatively balanced. It all comes down to what spells the mages have, what supplemental abilities the fighters have, and how the basic rules of the game apply to each. That said, in most video games, fighter or mage, combat is really your only measure of power. Utility options in video games don't come anywhere close to what is possible in D&D.

There is no real reason mages have to be better than fighters, that's just what the mechanics of D&D resulted in.

A simple DM trick you can do to balance classes is make some monsters completely immune to magic. Or have dungeons that have constant "anti-magic" fields around it. Surely in that situation a mage would be t6 and a fighter t1?

Ugh. I despise the notion of "Balance Through Occasional Complete Uselessness". It creates more imbalance overall, since it allows for characters to swing from massively overpowered to massively underpowered depending on the situation, putting the DM in the position where it has to either completely cripple the character or deal with a game-breaker. It's particularly heavy-handed when intentionally implemented as a DM tactic.

In any event, though, that wouldn't make fighters tier 1. Fighters would be sitting exactly where they are. There are plenty of non-magical classes higher in rank than a fighter, and even with mages rendered nigh-useless, fighters wouldn't shoot past them. At best, you'd now have Warblades as Tier 1 and Fighters as Tier 3, with mages and commoners now Tier 4. Probably a more reasonable interpretation is that the tiers remain as they are, but within those dungeons, there simply are no Tier 1-2s.

Or, of course, it might not do anything, as there are wizard builds and tactics out there that can get around antimagic (which does go to show just how overpowered wizards truly can be, when they have ways of beating even the one thing that's supposed to straight block their powers). Likewise, anti-magic dungeons generally also kill all magic items, which fighters need, particularly for defense.

What I was thinking of doing is making mages "Super specialised" as in only having access to one type of spells. Such as an illusionist or an "Evocanist"

Same with other spellcasters.

Although still having nothing to do with the fighter's tier, this is a fairly well-proven method for more balanced casters. The Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necromancer classes are all solid examples of how this can work.

[ThiagoMartell]

{Scrubbed}

[lunar2]

Ah I missed something out. Wizards/clerics/druids no longer get spells as they level up. Instead they have to hunt down a rare scroll to learn it. Yes that means that you could end up learning fireball at level 10.

Edit: How come in like final fantasy and games like that classes are balanced then?

making the magic users weaker doesn't make the fighter stronger. the fighter is still only T4, but now the casters are T3 or lower, as well.

@final fantasy. because they don't use the D20 system. their mages can't alter reality on a whim. that, and it's easier to balance for a computer game, because you know ahead of time what the players can try to do.

A simple DM trick you can do to balance classes is make some monsters completely immune to magic. Or have dungeons that have constant "anti-magic" fields around it. Surely in that situation a mage would be t6 and a fighter t1?

What I was thinking of doing is making mages "Super specialised" as in only having access to one type of spells. Such as an illusionist or an "Evocanist"

Same with other spellcasters.

golems are immune to magic. wizards just summon something to fight for them. or they drop a forcecage on it, and walk away, or they use any of a hundred other methods for dealing with magic immune creatures, such as spells that don't allow spell resistance.

@antimagic field. some spells function in antimagic fields just fine. also, the fighter gets weaker in antimagic fields, too, because his gear gets turned off. an antimagic dungeon just makes the whole party weak, or anyone who depends on magic (nearly everyone, in some form or another) will simply not go inside.

[Flik9999]

Thanks for reply Quellian-dyrae. As a DM has complete power anyway. If just make something up if I wanted to have a magic dead area.( for say a plot area where magic doesn't work so party has to split up and casters have to go to location A and Martial to Location B cos location A has them immune to physical damage.)If someone brought a mage with thier "Immune to magic dead". Id just hit em with something that drains all your spells you memorised.

Think Ill go with the single or maybe 2 schools when I run this campaighn and see how it works out with the new fighter. Comparing the buffs I hope this should bring it up to tier 3. And the single school will bring casters down to tier 3 so it should work out balanced.

I just remember second edition being balanced.

[ArkenBrony]

Or, of course, it might not do anything, as there are wizard builds and tactics out there that can get around antimagic (which does go to show just how overpowered wizards truly can be, when they have ways of beating even the one thing that's supposed to straight block their powers). Likewise, anti-magic dungeons generally also kill all magic items, which fighters need, particularly for defense.

i would like to know how to get passed anti-magic, cause i can't see a way

[Eldariel]

Edit: How come in like final fantasy and games like that classes are balanced then?

This really comes down to those games being inherently railroaded. There's no power beyond magic winning fights. You can't even cast spells outside fights most of the time and even if you can, they don't do ****. You also lack spells that do useful stuff, outside few examples.

And magic generally does still come out on top since there are few abusable spells that don't do mere damage (see Final Fantasy 6 Quick or Chrono Trigger Lifeline for instance). But yeah, basically, there's no story power for the player in these games. It doesn't matter where you can travel; you travel where the railroads take you. You can fly? Doesn't matter, you can't fly forward in the plot. You can scry? Doesn't matter, you can't scry anything useful that's not determined by the plot. And so on and so forth.


These kinds of games are examples of the worst kind of tabletopping and indeed, the reason pen'n'paper is inherently the superior format; because players do have agency - the ability to affect things and make their own moves. In an FF-style video game you're just watching a movie and fighting the fights and making few scripted decisions; in tabletop you're making all the decisions and the plans and picking how you solve every problem (not that there's anything wrong with that but that's not what pen'n'paper is about; of course some PC games offer more options too but they're still fundamentally restricted by their programming while pen'n'paper is inherently open since DM can make anything possible).

In such a format, the ability to do a wide variety of things is really the source of all power. And spells inherently have more of that power; mundanes need to have high ranks in all skills, a variety of combat options and defenses to even come close. Tier 1-2 is inherently out-of-limits for everything except truly ludicrous power (the point where a mundane can solve a problem by cutting the whole Evil Country in two and then running to space and throwing stars at people which convinces everyone to become their fanatic followers, that's when they begin to reach Tier 2 level power).

I just remember second edition being balanced.

Second edition balance isn't really about Tiers. Spellcasters still have much more power there. It's just harder to bring that power to bear, particularly in combat. Casters start with far fewer spells, level slower, spells have dangerous side-effects and they can never fight as well as warriors (because warriors have unique access to extra attacks and highest levels of weapon specialization and such). And spells are automatically disrupted with one hit, which basically forces casters to need bodyguards early on.

You could bring similar balance to 3rd edition, if you want to.


First step would be to remove the 5' step and defensive casting mechanics as both make spellcasters way too safe; casting simply doesn't have much risk when you can do so without even provoking AoOs very easily. Tumble also needs to be more difficult, somehow related to the threatening creature's skill (e.g. their BAB is a good basis).

Second would be raising casting times; making all spells (maybe leave some less powerful spells like Magic Missile and Cure Light Wounds as exceptions) take minimum of 1 round to cast (and bumping 1 round casting times to ~2) would make spells much more necessary to have somebody protect the spellcaster.

Third, make warriors more mobile. As it stands they have to stand still to full attack (to truly do the damage they need to be doing); melee full attack needs to be performable as a standard action (it's okay for ranged attacks to require full attack action tho).

Fourth, warriors need to be able to ready the action to block somebody's movement or overall, be a bodyblock. As it stands, it's way too easy to walk around warriors. If it were possible to use their move action to "block first person to cross X" or "stay in front of this enemy", it'd be much harder to just ignore them.

Fifth, you could of course make some spells more dangerous to cast. That's a lot of work tho but e.g. old AD&D spellcasters could age horribly by casting Haste, Polymorph disoriented you and Shapechange cost 1500gp per casting and could be ended by breaking the circlet. Whatever you do, remove the "Charisma-check to gain service of the creature"-line from Planar Binding and force Wizards to use social skills instead. That makes life a lot better. Also remove the "short-term service"-line from Gate. And make summoned/called creatures unable to use spells with XP/gold components. That kinds of things keep most of Wizards' abilities but remove some of the easiest gamebreaking options.

Sixth, you could use Tome of Battle classes (Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader) instead of or in addition to the PHB classes. They get a lot more different options which allows them to have more agency than warriors inherently; they're much better on account of versatility while their numbers are similar to normal PHB classes.

More skill points and/or condensed skill list is also a good option; mundanes do with skills what casters do with spells and thus they need good skill access to retain out of combat relevance. Pathfinder's skill system is a pretty good bandaid fix; it makes all skill ranks (cross-class or class) cost 1 skillpoint per rank, it removes many superfluous skills and it fixes some of the dysfunctional skills (Tumble [rolled into Acrobatics] & Diplomacy for instance) or at least addresses some problems with them.


All this wouldn't make Warriors tier 1 or Wizards tier 3 but it would even out combat encounters a bit and make Wizards a bit more reliant on protectors. In other words, it would make Warriors more valuable and useful members in adventuring parties.

I must warn you against balancing with excessive Dead Magic; just 'cause spellcasters are stronger doesn't mean it's fun to play a Commoner excessive amounts of time. Dead Magic can exist of course, but don't make it too common or necessary for the PCs to face. A session or two of Dead Magic can be interesting but if you can't cast a single spell for half the campaign, it can really get old (and the party can end up exceptionally dead 'cause half of them can only shoot Crossbows).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Second would be raising casting times; making all spells (maybe leave some less powerful spells like Magic Missile and Cure Light Wounds as exceptions) take minimum of 1 round to cast (and bumping 1 round casting times to ~2) would make spells much more necessary to have somebody protect the spellcaster.

This is a bad idea, honestly. While balance is a thing, I've played games where it takes two+ rounds to use magic, and it's really not fun to waste half your actions. And when it comes right down to it, we're playing a game to have fun. The fun is more important than the game.

(Now, before anyone yells at me, yes, a game where everyone is in the same ballpark power-wise is important, and magic can be too strong when you have well-played T1s in a group with poorly-build T4s and T5s, but a little restraint by the mages goes a long way to balance, say, T2 and T3.)

Fifth, you could of course make some spells more dangerous to cast. That's a lot of work tho but e.g. old AD&D spellcasters could age horribly by casting Haste, Polymorph disoriented you and Shapechange cost 1500gp per casting and could be ended by breaking the circlet. Whatever you do, remove the "Charisma-check to gain service of the creature"-line from Planar Binding and force Wizards to use social skills instead. That makes life a lot better. Also remove the "short-term service"-line from Gate. And make summoned/called creatures unable to use spells with XP/gold components. That kinds of things keep most of Wizards' abilities but remove some of the easiest gamebreaking options.

Can't go too far on the "dangerous to cast" bit, though, otherwise we get back into "no fun because I can't use my class features" territory.

I must warn you against balancing with excessive Dead Magic; just 'cause spellcasters are stronger doesn't mean it's fun to play a Commoner excessive amounts of time. Dead Magic can exist of course, but don't make it too common or necessary for the PCs to face. A session or two of Dead Magic can be interesting but if you can't cast a single spell for half the campaign, it can really get old (and the party can end up exceptionally dead 'cause half of them can only shoot Crossbows).

Yep. Fun is your keyword here. When proposing nerfs, imagine yourself as a player in the game. Would you be frustrated? If so, don't do it.

[Studoku]

i would like to know how to get passed anti-magic, cause i can't see a way

There are a few ways of dealing with anti-magic.

The orb line of spells is one of the easy ones. Due to the way they work (summoning non-magical stuff), they can be fired into an amf and destroy whatever's producing it. This works with any instantaneous conjuration.

The other is the (slightly silly) lead hat trick for dealing with unexpected amf. The wizard creates (through fabricate, summoned creatures or money) a giant lead hat- large enough to hide inside. They cast shrink item on it and wear it. Upon entering an amf, the shrink item spell is suppressed and the hat regains its full size, surrounding the wizard. Since amf is a emanation, it is blocked by the hat- the area inside the hat now allows magic. The wizard casts teleport.

[Quellian-dyrae]

i would like to know how to get passed anti-magic, cause i can't see a way

There are a few ways of dealing with anti-magic.

The orb line of spells is one of the easy ones. Due to the way they work (summoning non-magical stuff), they can be fired into an amf and destroy whatever's producing it. This works with any instantaneous conjuration.

The other is the (slightly silly) lead hat trick for dealing with unexpected amf. The wizard creates (through fabricate, summoned creatures or money) a giant lead hat- large enough to hide inside. They cast shrink item on it and wear it. Upon entering an amf, the shrink item spell is suppressed and the hat regains its full size, surrounding the wizard. Since amf is a emanation, it is blocked by the hat- the area inside the hat now allows magic. The wizard casts teleport.

In addition, I'm pretty sure there are at least a few options that explicitly let you can spells/a spell in antimagic or dead magic, although I'm not 100% sure of the mechanics myself. Dweomerkeeper is one, and I think there's a spell called Invoke Magic as well. As I understand it, they're high-level and at least somewhat obscure, but they exist, and players would probably be more likely to try and acquire them if they know that they're likely to encounter dead-magic dungeons at all routinely.

[Flik9999]

What I might try is reintroducing that "You cast a spell and get hit and its gone" mechanic. By making everyone decide there actions before thier turn at start of round (which could scum em if they dont talk and just decide such as warrios are gonna charge and mage is gonna fireball.) Then if a caster is hit they lose the spell. For now though I think the mages are super specialised will do the trick. As it makes them like T3 if they are no longer a wizard but say an "Illusionist" or an "Evocanist" should make them the same as "The guy who bashes enemies til it dies." Very specialist roles. Btw on a combat style of things do you think iv made the fighter overpowered? By effectively making him tier 0.5 in combat (I mean he can do 3X the damage of the standard fighter at level 10)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Buddy, you ain't even lifted him above T4. Tiers are not about raw numbers. Yes, you can spend most of your feats and make a lot of attacks and deal +30 damage on each at 20th level. (Assuming the bonuses from the feats stack.) Maybe even +50, if you power attack for full. Great! You can probably shred anything you can get in range of. You still can't touch fliers without magic. Can't touch invisibles without magic. Can't touch incorporeals without magic. Can't fight touch attacks, saves, battlefield control. Heck, you don't even have the skills on your class list to be semi-useful outside of a fight.

The Tome of Battle classes are great examples of T3 mundanes (well, mundanes and the Swordsage). Look to them for inspiration, not a calculator.

[Flik9999]

You have enough feats to get bow as well. Also was thinking of making bows get 2 attacks at no attack penalty. Removing the protection from arrows spell as well.

Edit: By overpowered I meant in a combat situation where the fighter can hit the enemy and deal his full damage by means of magical weapons or the feat which makes you ignore all damage reduction and can hit the target.

[RFLS]

I am actually serious will this make fighters tier 1?

No. It won't. You need to go read the tier list. You also need to cease and desist with the stuffy doll stuff. You wanted to know if your changes would shift it to tier 1; they would not. Nerfing tier 1 casters doesn't change that; it just reduces the number of people currently in tier 1.

[Flik9999]

No. It won't. You need to go read the tier list. You also need to cease and desist with the stuffy doll stuff. You wanted to know if your changes would shift it to tier 1; they would not. Nerfing tier 1 casters doesn't change that; it just reduces the number of people currently in tier 1.

By relative tiers it could. Like say there we no t1s the t2s would be the new t1s. Its not about "potential power" its about "real power". Like if there were no t1s, t2s or t3s the t4s would be the t1s, the t5s would be the t2s and the t6 would be the t3s.

[Daedroth]

You could do some Buffed Gestalt with Rogue and Marshall.

1- Gestalt
2- Make Evasion work with heavy armor
3- Give him Leadership

[Grod_The_Giant]

By relative tiers it could. Like say there we no t1s the t2s would be the new t1s. Its not about "potential power" its about "real power". Like if there were no t1s, t2s or t3s the t4s would be the t1s, the t5s would be the t2s and the t6 would be the t3s.

Neeeyyyeeehhh... not really. The tiers aren't strictly a measure of class-vs-class power. As we've been saying, they have a lot to do with options and variety. You are, of course, free to define relative power via tiers, but that's not the generally accepted terminology.

FYI: the tier descriptions:

Spoiler

Show

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

[Flik9999]

So looking at the tier chart this guy is T4 (as apposed to t5 which he was before as a cleric was a better fighter). As in he can smash anything if he gets in range or can switch to his bow. Would giving him a lot of skill points (was thinking of increasing fighter to 6+int as he will naturally have low int, this should compensate for it.)

[brujon]

I am developing a tier 1 fighter in 3.5. That I will be running a campaighn with. First off though a few changes.

BAB: You use your full bonus on all attacks. (A level 6 fighter will get 2 attacks at +6 instead of +6/+1)
Two handed weapons: Add double your strength bonus to damage.
TWF: Add 100% your strenght bonus to off hand weapons.
Classes with martial weapon proficiency instead get 3 martial or exotic weapon proficiencies.
Skills: 4+int

Now for the fighter stuff.

Two weapon fighting: You make an extra attack for each attack you get from BAB. Need light weapon to get the -2/-2 penalty.

Improved 2 weapon fighting: You can use one handed weapons as if they were light.

greater 2 weapon fighting: No penalty from two weapon fighting

Weapon focus and specialization: Replaced with Weapon spec.
Greater Focus and specialization: Replaced with greater weapon spec.

Weapon spec
Requirment: Level 2 fighter
+2 to damage and hit.

Greater Weapon spec
Requirment: Level 5 fighter, weapon spec
+4 to damage and hit. Also get one additional attack.

Weapon mastery
Requirment: Level 10 fighter, greater weapon spec
+6 to damage and hit. Doubles critical threat (Which DOES stack with improved critical.)

High weapon mastery
Requirment level 15 fighter, Mastery.
+8 to damage and hit, weapon ignores DR. Cannot be disarmed.

Grand weapon mastery
Requirment: Level 20 fighter, high mastery
+10 to damage and hit, get 2 additional attacks with weapon. Critical threats are confirmed.


I am actually serious will this make fighters tier 1?

Edit** Oh yeah other full BAB class can take the fighter specific feats if they are 5 levels higher.(Eg a level 7 barbarian can take weapon spec and move onto greater spec at level 10)

Still no way the fighter can fly without magic items. Still no way the fighter can naturally counter invisible foes/incorporeal without use of magic items. Still no way to immobilize large groups with one action. Still no way to actually have defenses up against stuff that instantly kills you, or devoids you of actions (Save or Dies & Save or Loses). Lack of ability to travel from one plane to another without use of magical items. Lack of ability to emulate other classes abilities (Main schtick for T1 characters).

What this basically does, is turn the fighter into a wonderful dip class, even more so than it already is, because you eliminate the penalties on multiple attacks, and basically get Greater Two Weapon Fighting for free from lvl 1.

Any attempt to turn the Fighter into a T1 class is bound to fail, simply because the only way to do so, is to give them access to something that is on par with spellcasting, which basically amounts to giving them spellcasting and just calling it something else. Plus, T1 classes are broken, they're not meant to be used to their full potential, otherwise the game will become broken, and the same is true for T2 classes, only less so. The actual sweet spot you should be aiming at is T3, and Tome of Battle gives a good enough example to follow.

You want to boost the fighter? Intersperse it's bonus feat with abilities that lets them do stuff that are more than just hitting things until they're dead. Locking down the battlefield, shutting down flying opponents, ways of dealing with invisible and incorporeal foes, ways to shrug off save or dies/loses, SCALING abilities that encourage you to keep the class for more than just a couple of levels, and focus not on just the damage. Make them more able to soak up damage, distract or disrupt opponents, and otherwise make them viable enough targets so that they redirect the opponents attention towards themselves.

With your current set-up, the fighter is no more useful than a properly built ubercharger, which is easily shut down by creating situations that he can't charge through. Put this fighter of yours levitating, and suddenly, he can't do anything, same as a regular one.

Just my 2cp.

[toapat]

T3, and Tome of Battle gives a good enough example to follow.

Tome of Battle is not T3. the T3 estimate is overvaluing a system that lets you beat face really effectively all day. thing is, barring a tiny number of maneuvers that only at base the swordsage gets, the set doesnt make you better outside of combat.


The reason why you cant fix the fighter and keep it a fighter:

The fighter doesnt have anything other then beating face, its his entire life story. he has nothing outside of combat for him at atll

[Grod_The_Giant]

The reason why you cant fix the fighter and keep it a fighter:

The fighter doesnt have anything other then beating face, its his entire life story. he has nothing outside of combat for him at atll

You have to stake out some ground to distinguish the capital-F Fighter from other fighter-classes, yes. In my own fixes, I've tried to make them intelligent warriors and, sometimes, leaders-- the guy who knows how to kill whatever it is you're fighting, how to use the terrain to his advantage, and so on. Feat retraining, combat maneuvers, Int-focuses and better class skills all help.

[toapat]

You have to stake out some ground to distinguish the capital-F Fighter from other fighter-classes, yes. In my own fixes, I've tried to make them intelligent warriors and, sometimes, leaders-- the guy who knows how to kill whatever it is you're fighting, how to use the terrain to his advantage, and so on. Feat retraining, combat maneuvers, Int-focuses and better class skills all help.

I think this is a good point to call out the worst aspect of having so many base and prestiege classes in 3.5:

Because there are so many classes, each base class must fight for their archetypes. paladins for instance, share the spotlight with at least 3 other classes, of which the Psionic and Incarnum classes are not spoken of, while Crusader is considered better (and is within their material)