No more Fighter?

[Woot Spitum]

I've been thinking, of all the classes in D&D, fighter is the most bland, generic, and downright boring. The only unique feature of the the class is access to a few specific feats (the weapon specialization tree) that aren't particularly good. Even the three classes that consistantly get the most hate for being weak (monk, samurai, and soulknife) at least have some unique flavor.

Why not get rid of the fighter class altogether, and replace it with classes dedicated to each of the main styles of fighting (sword-and board, two-weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, and ranged). Each new class gains what the fighter currently lacks: focus and fluff. Focus makes it easier to balance and add higher end abilities, as well as helping out new players who want to be good at melee combat, but are unsure what feats work together best as the new class-specific abilities choose many of the best options for them. Fluff will give new players more archetypes to explore, as well as making it easier for people to have different melee combatants in the party without making anyone feel that they're just another copy of the last guy (this will be especially beneficial for low or no magic settings).

[Dhavaer]

The Fighter is still useful to dip into. Sometimes you just need quick feats.

[Kyeudo]

4th ed comes out soon, and will basicly replace Fighters with Warblades, so why bother with 3rd ed any more?

[martyboy74]

Because not everyone will immediately switch to 4th edition, 4th edition isn't coming out until may, and 3.5 will still be a valid version even once 4th has come out?

Dhavaer: That's not really what a class is supposed to be about. I think.

[Dhavaer]

Dhavaer: That's not really what a class is supposed to be about. I think.

Sure it is. Not every class can be a Ranger or a Binder. There are some classes you take to 20, some you prestige out of at first opportunity, and some, like the Fighter, that you take when you need a couple of extra feats.

[FinalJustice]

What about those that want to be melee AND ranged? Remember, not everyone likes to be an one-tricky-pony, even if the trick is a cool one. The idea of specialized classes is cool, but the fighter as he is should survive (maybe adding some fluff).

[Soups]

Fighter quite honestly isn't the worst class out there. I can only speak from the casual crowd that I hang with. Our group knows how to break classes in half, but our DMs make sure no one is useless. A good DM that is working with a group that isn't out to break the game in half makes all classes work to thier potential.

It does require splat books, but if you have complete warrior, fighter is the quickest way to many prestige classes, especially the really great ones, such as Kensai. Yes, it is usually the first to be crossclassed, but that probably makes it one of the valuable classes. When your prestige class is done, you can always depend on fighter for Feats.

It does require good DMing to make fighters "playable". Straight core, it quite boring and difficult for begginers, if your with others who know the game better. But getting ride of fighter would be a mistake (I haven't checked 4th out yet) to get rid of fighter. Making it split into 2 catagories would give it direction, so it has a role, would improve the class to those who need it, but it would probably turn into samurai varients, and people would complain how the new fighters get less feats. Therefore, they would start to suck again.

With a good DM, it doesn't matter what class you take.

[the_tick_rules]

i play fighters and i like it. to heck with those who put them down.

[Woot Spitum]

What about those that want to be melee AND ranged? Remember, not everyone likes to be an one-tricky-pony, even if the trick is a cool one. The idea of specialized classes is cool, but the fighter as he is should survive (maybe adding some fluff).

You can still manage this, especially if you spend your nornal feats on whatever area your class doesn't specialize in.

As for dip levels, you could simply allow anyone to sacrifice progression in their current class level for bonus feats at the same rate that multiclassing into fighter would give them.

I know the fighter isn't the worst class around, the idea of this is to make it easier to specialize in a unique fighting style without any extra splatbooks or advanced planning to meet prestige class prerquisites. To make new melee specialists that are usable "as is" without extensive knowledge. In other words, to make it harder to make an ineffective character due to lack of knowledge about the game.

In my experience, most people new to the game want to make a melee type, and are naturally drawn to the fighter class. Why not make things easier on them?

[tyckspoon]

In my experience, most people new to the game want to make a melee type, and are naturally drawn to the fighter class. Why not make things easier on them?

It's probably quicker and easier to achieve this by making the existing feats for those other specialized melee styles not suck so hard. Rolling the TWF/ITWF/GTWF line into a single BAB-scaling feat is a common first move for helping dual-wielders, for example.

[Nebo_]

Why not get rid of the fighter class altogether, and replace it with classes dedicated to each of the main styles of fighting (sword-and board, two-weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, and ranged). Each new class gains what the fighter currently lacks: focus and fluff.

Fighters don't need focus built in. Choose feats that focus on what you want to do - there, the fighter is focused. I love that the fighter doesn't have much fluff. WotC has no right to tell me how my fighter should be, less fluff written in a book means that I can make my own. They ruined the Warlock like that.

[ErrantX]

i play fighters and i like it. to heck with those who put them down.

Hear hear sir, hear hear. I agree totally. I <3 Fighter. That is the best way to be.

-X

[de-trick]

Fighters are easy to level 2 skill points, +1 BAB, a feat or 2 and your done. So if you don't want to spend the time to look for new spells and reading up on a ability, go with fighter. I once put a level in fighter cause I'd wanted to play a quick video game.

[Woot Spitum]

Fighters don't need focus built in. Choose feats that focus on what you want to do - there, the fighter is focused. I love that the fighter doesn't have much fluff. WotC has no right to tell me how my fighter should be, less fluff written in a book means that I can make my own. They ruined the Warlock like that.

An effective power attack build requires experience and splatbooks to pull off, something a new player is unlikely to have. Even if the class stays, some example focused builds would help newbies a great deal. New classes would also force the creation of new abilities to help the rather forlorn sword-and-board and TWF fighting styles.

Helping new players is the whole point of this idea (saving them from the horror that is monkey grip + weapon focus and that sort of thing), as experienced players don't need help building any character class. That, and I think it would be nice if the fighter had more abilities that no one else had.

[Mojo_Rat]

I honestly like the fighter. One of the things I always found strange Is one of the comon complaints people see to make about fighters is that they are apparently not very versatile. Which is rather strange considering a fighter can really be built to do just about everything combat related effectively.

I also think the 'its only a dip class' comentary is honestly a fallacy. given that with PRc's just about /every/ main class Is a dip class.

I was in a game a while ago where I had a fighter planned out to do every tricky combat thing Sundering triping disarming bullrushing. Was alot of fun but the campaign only lasted til seventh level so I never got to finish it.

didnt realize til then what a great feat improved overrun was.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Yeah know, I've always thought fighters were one of the best designed base core classes, along with rogue. Why? They are not pidgeonholed into one role, and they are flavorless. A base class as envisioned in 3.x should fit into any campaign setting, be playable by anything in that setting, and be able to have any flavor slapped onto them. They should also present a lot of different options about how to play them. Yes this can make it hard for a new player to pick them up, so maybe there should be examples of decent to good builds in the books. Still, it's kinda hard to build a fighter that sucks (a bit moreso a rogue). But as long as your rogue has good physical stats, he should be good. You can build a fighter and then forget to use his cool abilities (new players don't get power attack I swear). The fighter and rogue both do both these things better then any other class. Psychic Warrior also does it nicely (the one core gish class that does).

Fighter is a dip class because A. people understimate feats. B. People try to build a fighter like a barbarian, and then go barbarian cause it's got a higher will save. C. TWF, mounted combat, and archery are rarely used/underestimated/actually suck at high levels (twf). D. Sword and Board is done sooo much better with a gish/psi gish. And E. Tech fighters get their asses kicked by Giants, dragons, and anything that flies and/or teleports. But the real problem with all fighter types IMO is that a lot of monsters are built to tank, and they've got to be built to fight the whole party. So naturally as the casters scale in power, so do enemy tanks. Poor meatsheild defender is left in the dust.

[SoD]

Also, fighters can be one of the easiest to start new DnD players with, instead of explaining what half a dozen new class abilities do, where they're useful, when they need to be used, at every level...instead you just explain how a few feats are useful. Personally, the hardest bit for me as a DM is explaining how new abilities work, so fighter is nice 'n' easy.

Of course, when you're taking in a bunch of new people, none of whom have played before...that's when the fun begins!

[Weasel2007]

I like the fact that the fighter isn't pigeonholed but I can see where you're coming from.
I think it might be a good idea to split the fighter into two classes, one that is specialised in some path such a ranged or 2wf but with another class that is a real generalist. Maybe this class could take some of the generic class feats to let them do more stuff and give them the ability to choose one or two class skills and some more skill points.

[Matthew]

The Fighter is a broad archetype, much like the Wizard, Cleric or Rogue who are also exactly as conceptually 'boring'. The other Martial Classes are variations on the Fighter. They tend to be more powerful because that is the nature of 'power creep' in a heavily expanded rule set. Fighters are perfectly generic.

[DraPrime]

The fighter is just a very broad class. I could make a lawful good fighter, give him two swords, and call him a samurai. I could have a fighter with weapon finesse, and levels in the duelist PrC, and call him a swashbuckler. In the end, the beauty of the fighter is that you provide the flavor. While the fighter is underpowered, I really like it because you can have fighter be almost anything you want it to be. Want a hexblade but don't have CW? Just multiclass into sorcerer and learn some inherently dark spells. The point I'm trying to make, is that the fighter is only as flavorless as you make it.

[Renegade Paladin]

4th ed comes out soon, and will basicly replace Fighters with Warblades, so why bother with 3rd ed any more?

...

Because 4e hasn't come out yet? And will be expensive to upgrade to? And will, if the current previews are any indication, suck?

Anyway, the fighter is one of the easiest classes to fix. Just put some appropriate special abilities in all those dead levels it has. Bam, done.

[AslanCross]

i play fighters and i like it. to heck with those who put them down.

Amen. I love the warblade and I love the fighter. If a person can enjoy it despite being mechanically superior, then let them enjoy.

[Nebo_]

The point I'm trying to make, is that the fighter is only as flavorless as you make it.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make, just said better.

Anyway, the fighter is one of the easiest classes to fix. Just put some appropriate special abilities in all those dead levels it has. Bam, done.

Easier said than done. Also, that doesn't fix it.

[Kioran]

The problem lies not with the Fighter, but with the Combat System and the unbalanced nature of Feats in this edition. Fixing these "external" factors would fix the Fighter more thoroughly than any alteration to the class itself - which, by the way, rocks due to it´s universal flavor (You have learned to fight well, however you did it).
So a fix with more balanced feats prevents a less canny player from totally screwing himself, and a more flexible combat system gives everyone more options than "I cast a spell", "I move and attack" or "I full Attack".

[Renegade Paladin]

Easier said than done. Also, that doesn't fix it.

It's easier said than done, true, but it can be done. And it can easily fix it, depending on what you give.

[ocato]

Personally, I also like fighters. However, I feel that the main problem with them is that their fighter only feats are mildly lackluster. I think that a bit more fighter only feats are just the thing to spruce them up. Some fighter fixes give fighters neat new abilities, which are nice, but making these abilities into feats allows you to still go "X ability is nice but I'd rather have cleave" or whatever, hence keeping fighter versatility.

And I'm aware that any ability that isn't as good as cleave probably isn't that great, that was just an example.

[Stephen_E]

1) Fighters are a lot of fun.

2) Fighters are simple.

3) Fighters are extremly easy to design to taste.

4) Fighters are reasonably powered if you aren't playing with optimisers or Druidzillas/Batmen, which oddly enough quite a lot of people don't.

The two biggest problems outside that are IMHO -

a) Fighters should get 4 skill points + Int per level (but I think every class should get minimum 4pts per level)

b) They need more feats at higher level and/or some of the feats need compacting i.e. TWF/Imp TWF/Greater TWF, Imp Sunder/Imp Bullrush/ Imp Grapple, Dodge/Mobility, Combat Expertise/Combat Reflexes. Basically they struggle to get the fancy Weapon Styles and Tactical feats with all the prereqs required. Maybe if Fighters could use their Fighter bonus feats to take a general feat, fighter feat, or one of specified group of fighter feats, as mentioned above.

Stephen

[DraPrime]

...

Because 4e hasn't come out yet? And will be expensive to upgrade to? And will, if the current previews are any indication, suck?

Anyway, the fighter is one of the easiest classes to fix. Just put some appropriate special abilities in all those dead levels it has. Bam, done.

It's not the fighter that needs fixing. It's the spellcasting classes.

[WhiteHarness]

I've been thinking, of all the classes in D&D, fighter is the most bland, generic, and downright boring.

I vehemently disagree.

The monk is far, far more bland, generic, and downright boring. That whiff of what you term "unique flavor" that you detect around the monk is nothing more than typical Western "the grass is greener on the other side" fascination with all things Asian. At least the fighter gets cool toys and lots of feats to play with. The monk gets absolutely jack.

[Mr. Friendly]

Personally, I think the Fighter should be redesignated as an NPC class, replacing the Warrior entirely. Warblade effectively replaces it.