If the Fighter class doesn't make the best Fighter, what does?

[Soranar]

Prior campaigns had a lot more outdoorsy stuff. We used to play in person but various circumstances forced us to play online, I think that led to a different approach from the DM. There was also some confusion (on everyone's part) early on about how flying combat worked, I think that contributed to things as well.

"The Druid and the Wizard are doing okay, it must be something you're doing," is the prevailing view. I think Paladin and some of the other classes work fine early on, but now we're approaching the point where even the heal-bot Cleric is doing 10d6 and the my character's damage is still based on Power Attack and a +1 sword.

Core martial classes need magic items to stay relevant, it's just that simple really. If you're level 10 and you're not respecting wealth by level rules then you're going to struggle a lot. Especially if you rolled your stats on top of it.

From what you're saying your DM isn't even allowing core magic item so... good luck with that. Most advice will come down to : play a tier 1 class and call it a day.

The crit fisher ranger should be having more problems too: crit immune creatures are legion at that CR and not having good saves should be an issue.

[Mars Ultor]

I have a better suggestion on the "crazy stupid weapon dealing a lot of damage" front! It's a thing whereof I always wanted to try a variant: be a Tempest^CAdv. With warmaces^CW, in the plural. It's a straightforward Fighter 6/Tempest 4 build that eats up all your feats (stupid Dodge line!) and requires that you pump your DEX up to 17 (stupid TWF line!), but taking Oversized TWF at 6th level alongside ITWF and Two-Wepon Pounce at 9th level, you get a beefy dude who can charge and then hit something with two stupidly big maces (for 1d12 bludgeoning damage from each) taking no penalty to hit for fighting with two weapons (because Tempest). When not charging, you also still get four attacks for a total of up to 4d12+(3×STR) points of damage and still with no penalty to hit.

I'm not familiar with that, but I'll take a look. Even though the notion of wasting a feat on Dodge sickens me, thanks for the suggestion.

[tyckspoon]

The more I think about what's happening now is that the Ranger's player is doing something I don't understand. I suspect that player (who's an honest guy) is doing something wrong and that's skewing things. Maybe he doesn't understand how critical hits work or something, but something doesn't add up.

Common misconceptions and/or houserules related to critical hits include 'all critical threats automatically hit' (not correct, only a natural 20 roll automatically hits. If you have an extended crit range, you still have to hit the target AC in order to hit even if you roll inside your crit range) and 'crit threats are all crits, you don't have to roll to confirm.' Either or both of those could be making their Improved Crit/Keen bonuses much more effective than they should be. Rolled stats can also potentially mean his character is Just Better in a raw numbers sense. If his player has been with the group for a longer period of time there may also be some favoritism/historical benefit the player is getting in equipment - I would not be surprised if he has a couple of fairly nice magical weapons that he 'earned in play' that you aren't allowed to match because you weren't there for that quest, for example.. but that's me being cynical.


Frankly you are probably in the best possible situation to play a straight Fighter if you want to give that another try - just needs better feat selection. And, very critically, the ability to select feats from outside of Core without too many restrictions. Core Fighter options suck. But in low op environments you can get stuff that will let your basic numbers pretty much keep up. And dealing with primarily classed humanoid NPC opponents means most of the combat maneuvers are in play, because weapon users care about being Disarmed, classed spellcasters can have their important accessible items Sundered (NPC casters always Cast Defensively and act like they don't care about you standing next to them? Ready an action to break their holy symbol or material component pouch when they get it out to cast instead) and humanoid enemies tend to be fairly easy to Trip without the massive size and Strength bonuses monstrous foes often get.

So if you went raw Fighter, at level 10 you'd have.. lessee. 6 Fighter Bonus Feats.
Weapon Focus - Weapon Specialization - Piercing Weapon Mastery.
Improved Shield Bash - Shield Charge - Shield Slam. (Shield Charge and Shield Slam are in Complete Warrior.)
3 normal feats from leveling. Stats permitting, let's drop in
Combat Expertise - Improved Trip.
1 free feat selection remaining. If you go with being Human you could do Barb 2/Fight 8 instead - lose 1 Fighter Bonus in trade for the human bonus feat so that evens out, and your last general feat is probably Extra Rage. If not, probably want to pick up Power Attack on general principles, or if you didn't have the stats for Combat Expertise + Trip you might look at:
Shield Specialization (Shield AC increased by 1. Kinda terrible, but prereq for:) Agile Shield Fighter (when you TWF using a shield bash, your penalty is -2/-2 instead of the normal penalties. Basically lets you TWF with one-handed weapons at only light weapon penalties, doesn't have the Dex requirements of the normal TWF feat, but with the restriction that your offhand weapon must be a shield.)

Grab.. whatever piercing weapon you think will be pretty common in your campaign to make your weapon focus + weapon spec. It's nice if you can consistently make use of this and eventually manage to get a magical version of this weapon, but not required - those are mostly feat taxes to get the Weapon Mastery. Get a Spiked Heavy Shield (this is - mandatory - for this to work, even if you never find or can convince your DM to let you purchase or have made a magical version. You may need to lean on having somebody hit it with Magic Weapon spells. Heck, make this your Focus/Specialization weapon if you want, although you will need to be ready to deal with the inevitable Kingdom Hearts Goofy references.)

So what does all this do? When you charge somebody, you can hit them with your shield (benefiting from at least Piercing Weapon Mastery.) If you do, you get a free trip attempt. You also force a Fortitude save against being Dazed. If you successfully trip them, you get a bonus attack from Improved Trip. And if you successfully dazed them, you negate their next turn, so when your turn rolls around again you're standing next to a prone target (IE, +4 to hit against them) and can unload a full attack.

[Mars Ultor]

Core martial classes need magic items to stay relevant, it's just that simple really. If you're level 10 and you're not respecting wealth by level rules then you're going to struggle a lot. Especially if you rolled your stats on top of it.

From what you're saying your DM isn't even allowing core magic item so... good luck with that. Most advice will come down to : play a tier 1 class and call it a day.

The crit fisher ranger should be having more problems too: crit immune creatures are legion at that CR and not having good saves should be an issue.

WBL is ignored, that's something I regularly complain about. The DM doesn't see the casters needing magic items, why would the other PCs?

Something has to be wrong with the Ranger, he shouldn't be that effective. There's a problem somewhere. At least once a game the Ranger does something and I start thinking, "What? How is that happening?" I don't know what's going on.

[Mars Ultor]

Common misconceptions and/or houserules related to critical hits include 'all critical threats automatically hit' (not correct, only a natural 20 roll automatically hits. If you have an extended crit range, you still have to hit the target AC in order to hit even if you roll inside your crit range) and 'crit threats are all crits, you don't have to roll to confirm.' Either or both of those could be making their Improved Crit/Keen bonuses much more effective than they should be. Rolled stats can also potentially mean his character is Just Better in a raw numbers sense. If his player has been with the group for a longer period of time there may also be some favoritism/historical benefit the player is getting in equipment - I would not be surprised if he has a couple of fairly nice magical weapons that he 'earned in play' that you aren't allowed to match because you weren't there for that quest, for example.. but that's me being cynical.

I agree with every single think in the first paragraph. The player never really learned the system, I'm more and more convinced he's doing Critical hits wrong. His PC has outstanding rolls, I rolled uncharacteristically poorly. It's obvious there's some favoritism--a player who moved away used to complain about it all the time when I'd drive him home. And I missed a bunch of sessions due to various kid stuff and illness, my PC missed out on treasure and experience.

The good thing about being cynical is that you're either right or pleasantly surprised.

I had a tripping Fighter at one point, he was pretty effective early on and then I multiclassed into Rogue and got the additional damage and skills, still my favorite PC. Your build sounds really good. Now i'll sort of be disappointed if my Paladin doesn't die.

What are your thoughts on the Combat Brute feat?

[H_H_F_F]

WBL is ignored, that's something I regularly complain about. The DM doesn't see the casters needing magic items, why would the other PCs?

Seriously, check if Vow of Poverty is allowed. It's in Book of Exalted deeds. It's very good in extremely low-money campaigns, but it's also very restrictive and very thematic, so your DM might allow it anyway.

Something has to be wrong with the Ranger, he shouldn't be that effective. There's a problem somewhere. At least once a game the Ranger does something and I start thinking, "What? How is that happening?" I don't know what's going on.

I'd suggest communication. Have a 1 on 1 talk with the ranger, and tell him you think something might be wrong with his numbers. Ask if he'd like some help with that, don't force him into it. Sit down and run through a combat scenario. Check if he doubles extra damage dice on a crit, auto-confirms, whatever. Make sure there are no established house rules on the matter.

What are your thoughts on the Combat Brute feat?

It's a great feat. Momentum swing takes the day. But that's true if you can afford to power attack with high numbers. If you're facing high AC enemies without proper wbl support, it might not be viable. If AC of enemies is low, absolutely take it. Also good if you're fighting classed NPCs with mundane equipment a lot (which can happen in low magic settings) - cleaving sunder is absolutely brutal in that case.


On a general note, pay attention to the fact that you're getting suggestions here from all over the optimization spectrum. Make sure you're not under/over shooting your party's power level.

One more option that I think could do well is War Mind. It's focused, easy to use, and hard to really screw up. You might have some issues with the prereqs, though, given that you don't have access to classes outside core. But you could do Paladin, and take hidden talent at 1 and knowledge devotion at 3. Look into it.



Also, as a note, you can quote multiple posts in one post with the little "+ next to the normal quote button. Could help to avoid double-posting so much.

[Quertus]

I moved when I got married and left the guys I originally played with. I played D&D with people on and off over the years, but then had kids and other things going on. Then I ran into an old friend who'd moved out to where I live and hed mentioned that he plays D&D with a local group, I joined them.

It's a good fit for the most part, but there are some recurring issues. My first PC with them (and 3.5) was a Fighter who got killed very quickly. They helped me make him and suggested feats like Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword. After my PC's death I started looking online and saw what poor choices I'd been recommended. There's a view of the game they have which I think doesn't matches the reality of the rules.

I'm not against low-magic campaigns, I run one myself using the E6 rules, but that doesn't work when the martial PCs have campaign restrictions in regards to equipment and magic items but every spell is available for the casters.

The role-playing aspect is really good though, and they are good guys, it's just a fundamental disagreement in how some things work. Part of my frustration this time is that I really don't understand how the Ranger is so effective, something doesn't make sense to me.

Oh, yeah, I’m not opposed to the concept of “low wealth” on principle. Just… like you said, it seems the game isn’t what they think it is, and such ignorance is a poor position from which to me making such fundamental changes as “low wealth”.

Fighter have a hard time of it to begin with, but “low wealth” and “core only” are both huge obstacles to the class individually; together, it’s… “it’s a trap!”.

TWF sneak attack is, IMO, the go-to way to deal lots of damage easily in 3e. So it’s not surprising to me that a low wealth Rogue would be king of damage.

That said, you haven’t given us numbers - was my ~33 damage estimate even close?

Also… you played the Fighter who died in this campaign, right? Would the Pegasus have been useful for those first 9 levels (or however many levels the Fighter survived)?

[Fizban]

I typically use Silverbeard because my AC isn't great (some armors aren't allowed because of campaign setting) and Rhino's Rush. Rhino's Rush is good, especially when combined with Smite Evil, but it's only once.

So, more nerfs to your character specifically, got it. That's going to screw with a Fighter or Barbarian too- you're supposed to have Full Plate. AC does not scale with level, it scales with gear, and you're playing a class that expects heavy armor and not being allowed standard armors, while the Ranger is playing a build that apparently matches this "setting" perfectly.

The charitable thing would be to assume that no, it's just a well-designed setting where Monks and Full Plate don't make sense. The cynical reading is that the DM's reliance on NPCs (with very limited attack bonus) means that they need to reduce standard armor class even further, and banned the class that looks like it has (but in truth does not) good AC even without armor.

It is the DM's job, even stated directly in the magic item section, to make sure the PCs get the items they need to do their jobs. Your character does not have the items they need, because the DM has apparently banned some amount of the normal heavy armor, without replacement or refund.

The Barbarian/Fighter combo sounds good. I'm going to think it through and see which levels give me what I'd like. The Mastery feat would be useful in that magic weapons aren't typically for sale, they're just what the party comes across. Being able to use any slashing weapon would be a benefit.

Indeed- though you are of course still best with the weapon that has Specialization since they stack. This is where you have to metagame what sorts of weapons the DM has appear (usually one presumes Longsword is the most common, but who knows?)

The majority of the time the villains are NPCs with class levels, them having feats and using basic tactics is pretty common.

So your foes are either glass canons or just plain weaker than the monsters you're supposed to be fighting. I find this is a common occurance in "low magic (item)" campaigns, where the only reason the party is able to function is because essentially the entire CR systerm and monster manual has been thrown out- right up until the DM finally brings out a boss monster and suddenly nothing works. Then, charitably they feel that monsters should be extra-lethal because they're monsters, or cynically they're surprised and confused when the game for which they threw out all the balancing mechanics suddenly reveals its unbalance when a monster shows up.

On the bright side, if enemy NPC AC is terrible, that might mean you can Power Attack without needing tricks to offset the penalties. Just keeping your AC, while a total +3 attack from Focus/Spec/Mastery gives you much more accuracy.

I'm not looking to out due the Ranger or restrict him. It's that my character is assumed to be the primary fighter, but armor is limited and I do good damage for only one attack. The character is good when we're role-playing but feels useless in combat. Except for Strength and Charisma, which are 16s, his other ability scores are around 10. That's part of it, too. I've been much luckier and had more options in the past.

Which again- there is no "primary fighter," but there is an expected "tank," or "meatshield," and the ability to tank has been nerfed by armor restrictions.

I don't know what "DPS" means. I really don't understand how the Ranger is so effective, although I suspect some of it is the personal dynamics within the group. I've known these guys for years, but some of them go back decades and I feel that plays in part in what allowances are made during character creation.

As far as the Ranger getting favored enemies and my Paladin's mount being of limited use, I think it's just how this campaign worked out. A Pegasus would have been extremely useful last campaign, which is what led me to make that choice this time.

DPS stands for Damage Per Second, and is the general term borrowed from MMOs and other RPGs for how fast you can deal damage. There is a hugely common misconception that there is a party role of "DPS," essentially created out of nothing because people. . . want to DPS. This is what you really mean when you say you're thought of as the "primary fighter" but can't deal enough damage. But actually, every player likes dealing damage, and all PCs are supposed to contribute. You should not feel bad that your character deals less damage as long as it's not too much less damage, and you're performing your main role.

But the Paladin's main role is meatshield (as are all heavy-armor melee combat characters), standing between the rest of the group and the enemies because they can survive attacks that the others cannot. But this role has been removed because you don't actually have the armor the game requires for it, while the Dex-focused light armor ranger who is supposed to be squishy probably has as much or more AC than you. There is no gap in AC between characters, so your role is gone, which means the only thing separating your characters is how much damage you deal, and they deal more, so you feel bad.

This is why little things people like to pretend don't matter, like AC gaps and party roles, matter.

What are energy buffs?

I was referring to Flaming/Frost/etc permanent magical weapons (which means buffs was actually the wrong word, since there are also buff spells which add energy damage).

It's a good fit for the most part, but there are some recurring issues. My first PC with them (and 3.5) was a Fighter who got killed very quickly. They helped me make him and suggested feats like Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword. After my PC's death I started looking online and saw what poor choices I'd been recommended. There's a view of the game they have which I think doesn't matches the reality of the rules.

Which is unsurprising given that they mostly fight NPCs. Though there absolutely is plenty of room to have a game where EWP: Bastard Sword is a fine choice, I doubt this group is much aware at allof the situation they've built, and why it favors the Ranger and punishes a Paladin. They probably just think Ranger is a strong class.

Part of my frustration this time is that I really don't understand how the Ranger is so effective, something doesn't make sense to me.

With the DM limiting armor and using foes that are always vulnerable to sneak attack while having even lower AC than the party, I seriously doubt the Ranger's build is something that "just happened." They've built something that meshes perfectly with the game it's being run in, not relying on heavy armor that's been banned and leaning on TWF which would not be good enough against enemies with real armor class.

And I'm still suspicious of Favored Enemy- are you sure "no alternate class features" is really applying to everyone? Because there's an ACF that lets Rangers change favored enemy to an "enemy organization," letting them get their damage against. . . basically every enemy at all times if the DM has you fighting an "organization." Which if you're fighting mostly classed NPCs, sounds pretty likely. And if they are, you might as well give up because you're not beating that without char-op tricks that are going to stand out enough to get insta-banned.

And of course, there's the Ranger's own combat trick spells. They have Rhino's Rush too, for some reason, and Blades of Fire (+1d8 on each attack for a round), Lion's Charge (full attack on a charge), Swift Haste (extra attack in one round), and Fell the Greatest Foe (about tied for strongest damage buff in the game, but not relevant if you're fighting Medium sized-humanoids, unless the Ranger is Small). They don't have any more spell slots than you. . . unless they do, because where you need Str and Con and Wis and Cha, and also Dex because your armor sucks, they're using a Finesse build that doesn't need Str and they have no use for Cha. Which means there's a good chance they have more Wis than you: you said Rhino's Rush is only once, but you only need 14 Wis to get bonus slots for 1st and 2nd level spell, so that's two of each per day. Particularly when there are rolled stat which, as tyckspoon has used the phrase I'm so fond of, mean they're probably Just Better than you.

Or, maybe the Ranger really isn't getting favored "organization" or using their spells, or anything complicated at all, and it's just basline TWF with 1d6 sneak attack and a Keen weapon vs classed humanoids that don't even have standard heavy armor, while they have magic weapons that your new characters don't.

Because with a "low magic (item)" setting where you only find what you find, I would expect new characters are showing up with nothing at all, somehow. So if the Ranger has been there since the beginning, they probably have a bunch of items you don't, in addition to being Just Better, and in a "setting" that perfectly matches them while stripping away the relevance of other melee characters.

I'm not against low-magic campaigns, I run one myself using the E6 rules, but that doesn't work when the martial PCs have campaign restrictions in regards to equipment and magic items but every spell is available for the casters.

And while I'm usually not one to advocate for it, if it turns out this a "low magic, and also low armor, basically anything that's not this ranger build sucks, and. . ." then yeah it might be time to just give up and go caster. Except you can't play the easier to run Sorcerer, or draw a Warmage, and a Wizard spamming Sleep/Glitterdust/Web/Stinking Cloud at enemies so that. . . the Ranger can walk up and kill them? Isn't really an upgrade.

WBL is ignored, that's something I regularly complain about. The DM doesn't see the casters needing magic items, why would the other PCs?

Or you could just give up. If the game is not being run in a way that lets you have fun, don't play the game. "Casters don't need magic items why should you" ought to be a massive "red flag" when it comes to system understanding.

I'd suggest communication. Have a 1 on 1 talk with the ranger, and tell him you think something might be wrong with his numbers. Ask if he'd like some help with that, don't force him into it. Sit down and run through a combat scenario. Check if he doubles extra damage dice on a crit, auto-confirms, whatever. Make sure there are no established house rules on the matter.

In theory, but I doubt someone who's dealing the most damage in the party is going to think their numbers could be off, and if you did get them to agree to it they definitely won't be happy if you point out they've been breaking the rules. On the other hand, if their Ranger build is the only thing that works, you could try getting access/"advice" under the guise of wanting to make your own version.

I'd suggest talking to the DM about basic armor functionality, but they're also probably 100% convinced their "setting" is perfectly fine. The most important fix would be to get the game switched over to monster-fighting and magic items (also known as Dungeons and Dragons), but getting the DM to change their entire style isn't going to happen either, particularly when you say you've already complained about ignoring WBL and been ignored.

This group has their own little microcosm, as you say they've been playing together for ages, and you're not going to be able to fix that.

[H_H_F_F]

To voice something a bit more optimistic than a lot of what's been said: I think party balance, fun and engagement can all still be achieved in a game that breaks system expectations.

I think you should assume good faith: I've ran games where the PCs had to be in light armor because of setting reasons, with "you get what you find" as the rule and enemies mostly being classed NPCs. Granted, I didn't let players run around as full casters in that game, because that'd break it. It worked out great - it was a 5-20 campaign over 3 years or so, and everyone involved had a great time.

For more suggestions: if you feel like high-AC would be a game changer for you, consider going for 1 level Fist of the Forest (Complete Champion) and 2 of Deepwarden (Races of Stone). It's very feat-intensive, especially without ACFs, but it gets Ac 10+2*Con. If you can pimp Con you'd get very good numbers. Works great with Barbarian, making your AC go up instead of Down when you rage. Again though, very feat intensive. Could work if Flaws are on the table.

In fact, if flaws are in the table, and WBL is really bad, you could go for Forsaker from masters of the wild on top of everything else. A Dwarf Barb 1/ Forsaker 6/ Deepwarden 2/ Fist of the Forest 1 is doable with 2 flaws. Starting with Con 16, and then +4 from dwarf and levels, +6 from forsaker... you'd have +8 Con, +10 when raging. That's an AC of 34, 38 when raging. You'll have Damage reduction 7 on top of that, and full BaB.

This build sucks, but it might be fun in the context of this campaign. Go for steadfast determination at 12.

You'd still be very unimpressive offensively, but you'd be able to throw yourself at anything, which could be fun.

[Endarire]

Druid. Druid, Druid, Druid, Druid, Druid.

With a side of Martial Adepts, Psychic Warriors, and melee Clerics.

[Biggus]

My preference is to play a melee character, I'm not a fan of Druids and the metamagicked Cleric to Fighter doesn't appeal to me either.

You play what you want to play. There are a lot of people on these boards who insist you're an idiot if you don't play a full caster. That may be the case in the kinds of games they play, but it isn't in any of the ones I've ever played in. In the game I'm running now the strongest character is a multiclass Barbarian/Fighter, and while it's far from high-op it's higher-op than the campaign you're in from what you've said.

Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying "you should take my advice and play a Barbarian/Fighter". The tripper builds others have suggested work very well. I'm just saying "if you don't play an optimized full caster you're going to be useless and not have any fun" is not true in most actual games.

[smetzger]

Barbarian with maybe some Fighter levels. Barbarians have more skill points than a Fighter so, more opportunities to do things outside of straight up combat

Two handed sword or great axe with power attack. You will do ample damage while raging. Make sure your highest stat is Strength and just keep boosting it as much as possible.
You could also max out Intimidate skill and take Intimidating Rage and Imperious Command feats

[Anthrowhale]

Have you considered a Sorcadin style build? For a low-magic setting where you want to melee, it seems reasonably solid and simple.

Maybe something like: Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 3

Maximize your Charisma, have a decent Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength. Use a Mithril Chain Shirt + Dastana + Chahar-Aina combo for a +6 armor bonus.

Spells Known are:
4. Polymorph //see forms here.
3. Greater Mighty Wallop. //Wield heavy damage blunt weapons like warhammers or maces
3. Greater Magic Weapon //Penetrate DR/magic
2. Wraithstrike // spells are a touch attack for 1 round, swift cast
2. Heroics //Pick up any fighter bonus feat.
2. Alter Self //Crucian gives natural armor +8
1. Shield // Shield bonus +7, swift cast
1. Protection from Evil //swift cast
1. Nerveskitter //go first
1. Blockade //swift BFC
1. Swift Expeditious Retreat //swift move

Next level:
4. Greater Luminous Armor // massive armor class
3. Girallon's Blessing // double your arms

For feats, something like:
Human: ?? (maybe two-weapon fighting)
1. Combat Reflexes
3. Power Attack
6. Combat Casting
9. Practiced Spellcaster

Polymorph provides you physical stats in combat. Between Abjurant Champion buffing AC and Paladin buffing saves your are pretty robust.

For example, if you Polymorph into a Cave Troll, your AC is 10(base)+11(natural)+7(shield). You can charge and power attack with warhammers dealing 3d6+11 damage using wraith strike and power attack to amplify damage more while having a chance to daze when you hit.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Have you considered a Sorcadin style build? For a low-magic setting where you want to melee, it seems reasonably solid and simple.

No sorcerers (or monks) allowed, sadly.

[Mars Ultor]

That said, you haven’t given us numbers - was my ~33 damage estimate even close?

Also… you played the Fighter who died in this campaign, right? Would the Pegasus have been useful for those first 9 levels (or however many levels the Fighter survived)?

The Fighter died early on, 2nd level. That was my fault, poor decision making. I . The Pegasus is occasionally useful, but mounted combat opportunities have been lacking.

If my Paladin uses his potion of Bull's Strength he's doing about twelve points if he attacks once in a round, if he drops his shield and uses two hands on his sword it's about eighteen or so. That's assuming no spells or Smite Evil. My preference would be to fight two handed and get double the Power Attack bonus, but my AC is 17 without a shield (20 with). Silverbeard adds +2 to AC if I use it.

The Ranger seems to be doing about eighteen if he attacks once with both weapons in a round. If he uses all four attacks he's always doing almost forty points of damage. He also seems to hit more often than I do, I often feel he's doing at least double the Paladin's damage, sometimes triple.

[Drelua]

No sorcerers (or monks) allowed, sadly.

I was reading this whole thread wondering why no one was suggesting Sorcadin, then I get to the last two posts. Dangit. Don't know how it didn't connect when I read that Sorcerer was banned. I was going to suggest asking to retrain your current character to that, but I guess that's out. Sounds like someone has to have a talk with your group about sample sizes, one broken character doesn't say anything about the class. From the sounds of it, most of this forum could get literally any class banned from this table. Not that Sorcerers can't easily be OP, but they're maybe the weakest full casting class in core.

Then again, might be better off just getting your Paladin killed so you can roll better stats anyway. Should be easy enough, just do something stupid, er, I mean, heroic. Like try to fight on top of a building, that mistake got one of my Paladins killed. "Roll acrobatics," or "roll balance" in 3.5, can be a very scary phrase for Paladins.

[Mars Ultor]

Swift Haste is a definite possibility, that would explain a lot.

I'm usually reasonably happy playing, I'm used to casters dominating the game, but I feel like I'm contributing and my character is effective. There's also role-playing, which I like, and the DM is a teacher, his campaigns are always well researched and interesting.

There's always a minor level of frustration because I think the system has a lot of issues and you can accidentally make an effective character simply by choosing the right class, but a Fighter can't be a basic knight without cross-classing skills.

This campaign just aggravates me because I feel as if my character is constantly deprived of a major class feature, has bad stats, doesn't contribute much in combat, and I seem to spend half my time using potions and spells to make myself effective while the Ranger simply strolls into melee and does at least twice my best damage.

[Mars Ultor]

Then again, might be better off just getting your Paladin killed so you can roll better stats anyway. Should be easy enough, just do something stupid, er, I mean, heroic. Like try to fight on top of a building, that mistake got one of my Paladins killed. "Roll acrobatics," or "roll balance" in 3.5, can be a very scary phrase for Paladins.

I think this thread got away from me. I was initially asking about creating a good fighter, considering the Fighter class isn't that great, but it turned into me complaining about the current campaign.

But several people have pointed out that a few levels of Barbarian in combination with Fighter can solve some problems.

[tyckspoon]

The Ranger seems to be doing about eighteen if he attacks once with both weapons in a round. If he uses all four attacks he's always doing almost forty points of damage. He also seems to hit more often than I do, I often feel he's doing at least double the Paladin's damage, sometimes triple.

He really shouldn't be hitting more than you, although some mix of being allowed to have nicer weapons, potentially better stats, and possibly just outright misusing rules could easily explain why (or just making more attempts, as he probably swings at least two more times a round compared to you.)

If you want to stick with Paladin, probably the best thing to look into would be the various feats that can make your Turn Undead pool into a reliable combat resource instead of a bad niche ability. These are the Domain Devotion feats (mostly Complete Champion) and the Divine feats, found in.. various places, but most of them are bad so there's really only a couple you would care about.

Devotion feats give you a 1/day ability themed around various, well, domains. You can get additional uses of the ability by selecting the feat multiple times, or by expending Turn Undead uses. Law and Protection are pretty in-character for the archetypal Paladin, and also happen to be pretty good feats! Law in particular - for 1 minute (so generally the important duration of a combat) you can add a Sacred bonus (ie stacks with.. most everything) to either your AC or your attack roll. Starts at +3, increases to +5 and +7 at certain levels.
.. although from what you've described of your table I suspect this might just get banned, as this is a -sizable- bonus, especially when you aren't reliably getting the other things that should be getting your to-hits and/or AC up.

The Divine feats you would likely want to look at would be:
Divine Might - has been mentioned before. Really straightforward, adds Charisma to damage for 1 round.
Retrieve Spell - this is a gem I wasn't aware of before. Spend Turn Undeads to refresh a spell slot. For a full caster, this is kind of underwhelming; they get a bunch of low level slots and don't usually need to use them very much, and for higher level slots it'll run out TUs really quickly. But Paladins are terminally low on spell slots, will usually want to cast at least one first or second level spell every fight if they can, and especially because you can't just go buy a necklace's worth of Pearls of Power.. 2 Turn Undeads to get your Silverbeard or Divine Favor or Rhino's Rush back seems like a pretty good deal (costs 1 + spell level of the slot to be recharged.)

[Max Caysey]

It's generally accepted that the Fighter has a lot of issues and doesn't keep up with the other classes. If you were building a 10th-level character who was the party's main melee fighter how would you do it? Core classes and races, no alternate class features or abilities, but most feats and prestige classes (except those in setting specific books). Please don't include special equipment and magic items, just the PC itself.

I would think that a great sword wielding fighter cleric would be some of the most potent things in core only! Expand that, and you have all sorts of pounce barbarians, bear warrior/ fist of the forest, crit fishers, tripper and more…

[Fizban]

The Ranger seems to be doing about eighteen if he attacks once with both weapons in a round. If he uses all four attacks he's always doing almost forty points of damage. He also seems to hit more often than I do, I often feel he's doing at least double the Paladin's damage, sometimes triple.

With d6 weapon and d6 sneak attack that's ~7 per weapon, only needing +2-3 to hit the totals you're seeing. If both weapons are even just +1 and they have 12+ Str, that would do it, no favored enemy required.

Meanwhile if you're fighting classed humanoid enemies with normal stats (no more than a 15 or 16) non-magical gear and no better than Medium armor, their AC would top at maybe 16, or 18 with shield, 20 with maxed Dex, and far less if they're in armor weaker than Chainmail. The Ranger has one less BAB than you but, as discussed, they only need Dex so their Dex is probably higher than your Str- and since they're always going for flanking sneak attacks, they're getting +2 attack (offsetting the TWF penalty) while you're probably moving into position first and attacking without that +2. I expect they're attacking at something like +14/+14/+9/+9, which against AC 16 is going to wreck face- and since they're rolling more often the rare bad rolls don't stick out nearly as much as yours do, and they have four chances to fish a crit each round.

(Edit: You also mentioned turns where they only make two attacks, which is not normally how TWF works- unless they're using Two-Weapon Pounce, which would let them charge and get two attacks. Which, if you include the sneak attack means you could basically read this as moving and making "an" attack at 4d6+6*. Because you're not using TWF, you can't get the (much more reasonable) feat-based "pounce" options, and because ACFs aren't allowed, you can't use the (so broken I banned it) common suggestion of Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian. So once again, there's something your character just isn't allowed to do that the TWF build is.

*Obviously it's actually two rolls and you have to move in a straight line, but you get the idea.
A Fighter could try to match this without using TWF, instead using Spring Attack/Bounding Assault to get an extra attack when moving, but Bounding Assault requires BAB +11 and you also need Dodge and Mobility first. A decently heavy addition, but still easily workable. . . at 12th, since Fighter bonuses are on even levels and it requires BAB 11+ [you could desync Fighter with another level of something, but I wouldn't say Barb 3, Pal 1, or Rgr 1 are worth it, and Rogue 1 reduces BAB so you'd still be waiting to 12th]

Spring Attack would also have the benefit that enemies no longer get to stand there and full attack you, and again have a side result where you're not standing still to grant flanking anymore.)

You mentioned the DM's use of feats- it's also possible some of these foes have say, Dodge, and have declared the "primary melee fighter" as their Dodge target. Negatively speculating even further, it's possible foes see you coming and fight defensively or activate Combat Expertise but they don't for the Ranger for some reason- and then if your DM understood those options incorrectly, say had them apply to your approach but then turns them off because "flanking," creating an even bigger gap. I think it's most likely just that your misses stick out way more, while you probably engage the higher AC targets, with a lower starting bonus and no +2 from flanking on your first turn.

Swift Haste is a definite possibility, that would explain a lot.

I suggested it, but I think less so- you'd be more likely to notice if they were taking extra attacks suddenly, Blades of Fire is worth more damage, and based on the damage numbers you've given neither is required.

Speaking of which- you can also just get in on the sneak attack yourself. If you never fight things that are immune, there's no reason not to. Paladins are not prohibited from stabbing (bad) people in the back, and you're not gaining very much from your Paladin features anyway: a mount that rarely matters and a Smite that even if you took Extra Smiting will never compare to Rage or Sneak Attack. This can be applied to the Barb/Fighter/etc build as well of course, taking 1-3 levels later on so that you can cram all 8 skill points into just a couple skills while gaining 2d6 Sneak Attack for only a single point of BAB (it will be interesting to see if the Ranger takes more Rogue themselves).

a Fighter can't be a basic knight without cross-classing skills.

I believe it was asked before, but define "Knight." If what you want is mechanical tanking ability and you're allowed wide access to feats, crack open Drow of the Underdark for a pair of feats that should have been in PHB2 to finish fixing the Fighter: Constant Guardian and Dutiful Guardian, which let you designate a nearby ally and switch places with them outside your turn.

If what you mean is a bunch of social skills- well those shouldn't be required anyway, but like I just said, sprinkle in some Rogue levels. Rogues get all the skills and a giant pile of points at each level and you can afford up to four at the cost of only -1 BAB. Fighter doesn't natively have a ton of stuff, but neither do most martial classes. The true martial artist, in DnD as in real life, learns from multiple "classes" if they want to be the best. A "Knight" is just guy who fights and has social status, while the only difference between a "rogue" and a "courtier" is that the rogue has training and presumably rougish-good-looks.

This campaign just aggravates me because I feel as if my character is constantly deprived of a major class feature, has bad stats, doesn't contribute much in combat, and I seem to spend half my time using potions and spells to make myself effective while the Ranger simply strolls into melee and does at least twice my best damage.

All of which is perfectly valid and are things the DM should be listening to and finding ways to deal with.

[pabelfly]

I would think that a great sword wielding fighter cleric would be some of the most potent things in core only! Expand that, and you have all sorts of pounce barbarians, bear warrior/ fist of the forest, crit fishers, tripper and more…

The Pounce Barbarian isn't from Core though, and TC can't use alternate class features.

[Drelua]

I think this thread got away from me. I was initially asking about creating a good fighter, considering the Fighter class isn't that great, but it turned into me complaining about the current campaign.

But several people have pointed out that a few levels of Barbarian in combination with Fighter can solve some problems.

I get that, I'm just saying it's very easy to find an honourable death as a Paladin. Especially in 3.5, there's a reason I didn't play one until I switched to PF. It's not a perfect group, but I'm from a small town so I know options can be limited. As long as you're having fun, it's probably worthwhile. In a game like this, I might just ask to retire the character, it's not unreasonable to think that if your character isn't contributing to the group, they might decide it's for the better for everyone if they part ways. Then you can make a character you'll have more fun with. As someone that loves monks, I know how it can feel not to be contributing.

I just get a bit annoyed with arbitrary bans, sounds like they make a habit of not thinking things through which can lead to a lot of unfair rulings. Like banning the weakest class in the PHB. Like, you're not missing much there, I just worry about the judgment of the person that does that, which can be a very important thing in a GM. I've played with quite a few people that have been gaming since the 70s or 80s, most of them are a lot of fun but there's a lot of ideas that can get carried over from older editions, even though they're no longer remotely accurate. But as I type this, I realize that you just said they've been playing together for decades, which could mean just 3.x. And, now I feel old.

[Max Caysey]

The Pounce Barbarian isn't from Core though, and TC can't use alternate class features.

Indeed, that’s why I started with saying that in core I would guess a fighter/cleric mix would be the best. 4 levels of fighter yields Weapon specialization and opens for weapon mastery. Great sword is the best two-ha fed weapon in core damage wise IIRC… cleric opens both very good buffs and healing!

However I haven’t played “core only” since back when they were the only books released for 3.0!

[Asmotherion]

Probably a Warblade or Swordsage tbh.

[pabelfly]

Indeed, that’s why I started with saying that in core I would guess a fighter/cleric mix would be the best. 4 levels of fighter yields Weapon specialization and opens for weapon mastery. Great sword is the best two-ha fed weapon in core damage wise IIRC… cleric opens both very good buffs and healing!

However I haven’t played “core only” since back when they were the only books released for 3.0!

Dipping a level of Cleric for Turn Undead and getting the Travel Devotion feat isn't a bad idea either. Would mean that you'd get a full attack off every turn.

[Anthrowhale]

No sorcerers (or monks) allowed, sadly.

Huh.

The persistent spell cleric remains solid given all the constraints then.

A less-ideal alternative to a Sorcadin is a wizard based approach. Something like: Paladin 2/Transformation Specialist wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 3

[Mars Ultor]

I believe it was asked before, but define "Knight."

If what you mean is a bunch of social skills- well those shouldn't be required anyway, but like I just said, sprinkle in some Rogue levels. Rogues get all the skills and a giant pile of points at each level and you can afford up to four at the cost of only -1 BAB. Fighter doesn't natively have a ton of stuff, but neither do most martial classes. The true martial artist, in DnD as in real life, learns from multiple "classes" if they want to be the best. A "Knight" is just guy who fights and has social status, while the only difference between a "rogue" and a "courtier" is that the rogue has training and presumably rougish-good-looks.

A knight would have Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty, and perhaps History. Or perhaps someone wants to play a Viking-like character, Profession: Sailor is a cross-class skill. The most basic Fighters have to multi-class or spend their minimal skill points on cross-class skills. You'd also think in a world full of monsters people who make their living fighting would have some knowledge of the various creatures, but that's also not possible for a straight Fighter.

One of the guys in the campaign says the same thing you did, just take a couple levels of Rogue, but that's a solution to problem that shouldn't exist. You can't play a basic, iconic Fighter without being a class that's not Fighter.

[pabelfly]

A knight would have Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty, and perhaps History. Or perhaps someone wants to play a Viking-like character, Profession: Sailor is a cross-class skill. The most basic Fighters have to multi-class or spend their minimal skill points on cross-class skills. You'd also think in a world full of monsters people who make their living fighting would have some knowledge of the various creatures, but that's also not possible for a straight Fighter.

One of the guys in the campaign says the same thing you did, just take a couple levels of Rogue, but that's a solution to problem that shouldn't exist. You can't play a basic, iconic Fighter without being a class that's not Fighter.

Ideally you have a feat combo that let's you have some spare level up feats so you can pick up some non-combat feats. Admittedly this is extremely hard for more feat-intensive styles, but for a simpler power attack build you should hopefully manage a spare feat or two by level 10.

[MultitudeMan]

A knight would have Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty, and perhaps History. Or perhaps someone wants to play a Viking-like character, Profession: Sailor is a cross-class skill. The most basic Fighters have to multi-class or spend their minimal skill points on cross-class skills. You'd also think in a world full of monsters people who make their living fighting would have some knowledge of the various creatures, but that's also not possible for a straight Fighter.

One of the guys in the campaign says the same thing you did, just take a couple levels of Rogue, but that's a solution to problem that shouldn't exist. You can't play a basic, iconic Fighter without being a class that's not Fighter.

Perhaps what you're looking for on this point is the generic Warrior class, from Unearthed Arcana, as you can pick any 6 skills as class skills.