PDA

View Full Version : The Fighter Manifesto - Now with Surveys!



itastelikelove
2010-04-21, 01:10 AM
In order to improve the Manifesto (below), I am currently trying to get everyone to fill out a short survey about what they want and expect from revisions or fixes to the Fighter class. Here's the survey (and a little bit of chatter):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Let's give it a few days.

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



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

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

I. Statement of the Intention of This Document and Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Presuppositions: The Undisputed Facts

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

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

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

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

III. Merits: What Fighters Can Do Right Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Expectations: What We the People Want to See

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

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

1a. A higher base Will save, or a level-dependent bonus would be the easiest fix.
1b. Something like Mettle (Crusader ability, ToB) or Iron Heart Surge (ToB) might work too.
2. Effective “Tanking” ability. Some reason for enemies to hit you instead of the rest of the party.

2a. An ability to force enemies to target the Fighter against their better judgment.
2b. An ability to hurt foes who target your allies.
2c. An ability to hurt foes who ignore you.
2d. An ability that makes Fighters such a nuisance that they must be dealt with first.
3. More worthwhile options in combat. Hitting things with a stick is fun, but it's just not enough.

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

4a. Pounce.
4b. If a caster can move 30+ feet and still call on ancient powers twice in one round, I should be able to move 10 feet and still hit something with my stick twice. At least.
4c. Abilities that use Swift or Immediate actions.
5. More Skill points and better class Skills. Especially Intimidate. And some others.

5a. Intimidate
5b. Spot and Listen
5c. A bunch of others.
5d. Use Magic Device
6. Abilities to prevent or counter spellcasting. Or anything to help out against those pesky magic users.

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

VI. Suggestions: What Might Also Be Kind of Nice

1. Other out-of-combat options.

1a. Anything to round out the Fighter.
1b. Perhaps skill-assist bonuses, to represent group leadership ability.
2. Abilities to encourage diversity of Ability Scores.

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

3a. Something to make Two-Weapon Fighters viable against opponents with high DR.
3b. Something to make Sword-and-Shield Fighters useful, especially as “tanks” and defenders of the party.
4. No loss of damage-dealing potential.

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


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

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

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

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

Ashtagon
2010-04-21, 01:30 AM
My personal views are:

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

Jallorn
2010-04-21, 01:39 AM
Personally, I don't see fighters as leaders. I see them as simply skilled warriors. Let them have a PRC that lets them become a good leader by all means, but the fighter class itself is just that, a fighter.

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

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

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

Ashtagon
2010-04-21, 01:56 AM
Personally, I don't see fighters as leaders. I see them as simply skilled warriors. Let them have a PRC that lets them become a good leader by all means, but the fighter class itself is just that, a fighter.

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

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

itastelikelove
2010-04-21, 02:23 AM
Ashtagon and Jallorn - I agree with pretty much everything both of you said. Including where you disagree. The noble Fighter archetype has room for you both. Arthur was King of the Brittons. The archetypical Black Knight is a loner. Muhammad Ali was an inspirational figure, and a household name. The current world-champion of the UFC is some guy who's really good at kicking people in the head. Fighters can be mercenaries or Kings.

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

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

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-04-21, 02:32 AM
I would say that there was a way the Fighter could have significantly gotten a power boost: Tactical feats. However, it was never really explored all that well.

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

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

Gnifle
2010-04-21, 02:48 AM
First of all - great idea for at thread, the fighter needs all the help he can get.

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

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

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

Runestar
2010-04-21, 08:36 AM
I feel that bonus feats are still viable, but the challenge is in creating enough higher-lv feats which are comparable to the class features of other classes so the fighter remains competitive at higher lvs. You don't want scenarios where the wizard acquires 8th lv spells and gets to play around with PAO and maze at lv15 while the fighter can only look forward to taking....great cleave???:smallconfused:

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

itastelikelove
2010-04-22, 01:10 AM
Ah, Feats, feats, feats. I love me my feats. They're like Legos for geeks. Just stack 'em up however you want, and you have something fun. But if you want it to be useful, you need all the right pieces, and the colors need to match, and you need to sift through a whole box of all those little thin ones, with just one button? And then you still can't build a proper castle, because you only have a spaceman set...Aaand I think that metaphor's dead now...

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

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

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

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

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

Simba
2010-04-22, 01:13 AM
The problem with the feats is not their quality but the fact that they don't scale at all. Even first level spells become better as the mage gains levels, why not fighter feats? Make them scale with BAB and you are in a much better shape!

itastelikelove
2010-04-22, 01:54 AM
The problem with the feats is not their quality but the fact that they don't scale at all. Even first level spells become better as the mage gains levels, why not fighter feats? Make them scale with BAB and you are in a much better shape!

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

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

Apalala
2010-04-22, 02:28 AM
The Pathfinder fighter is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Bravery in particular is an insult, seeing as how paladins are IMMUNE to fear at level three and bards have higher saves against fear simply by having a good will save.

Three fixes I have for the fighter:

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

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

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

Tavar
2010-04-22, 02:42 AM
I do not however like ToB's "magic" warriors. It's a fine idea, but that's not what the Fighter class is about. Yes, by twentieth level, and even tenth, the Fighter is superhuman, but there's only so much he can do with a weapon. He can't break physics, just bend it.
Cause, "I hit things hard" or "I hit things precisely" is so very magical. Or are you referring to the disciplines that are only available to the Monk/Paladin analogues?



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

Set
2010-04-22, 04:23 AM
I'd want some combination of the following as options;

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

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eldan
2010-04-22, 05:25 AM
What fighters need really isn't more numerical boni: a well-built fighter is already more than able to finish something off in one attack. What he needs is more battlefield control and options.

So, a few suggestions:

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

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

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

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

Ashtagon
2010-04-22, 06:12 AM
In terms of niche, I'd rather the fighter be firmly in the "heavy armour" mould, and leave the "light armour" zone to rogues, scouts, and swashbucklers. Similarly, he should be in the melee zone, with ranged attacks left to rangers, scouts, and rogues.

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

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

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


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

Eldan
2010-04-22, 06:27 AM
One thing I don't agree with:
Feats. Sure there are a ton of feats out there. But the fighter gets, during his career, 11 bonus feats, in addition to his normal 7 feats and possible human bonus feat. The longest feat chains have perhaps what, six, seven feats, and those are rare. There's tripping, whirlwind attack and shock-trooper leap-attacking. That means that, sooner or later, the fighter will take a second feat chain, or several more.
What I'd like to see would be more long and branching feat trees, so that the fighter actually gets to do something meaningful with them, instead of taking Greater Weapon Focus and that kind of nonsense which he doesn't really need at all. Why not create a chain of ten feats all building up on the framework of Improved Bullrush, Combat Reflexes or another basic fighter feat?
We could then still fill the dead levels between the bonus feats with static boni.

Runestar
2010-04-22, 06:32 AM
The problem with the feats is not their quality but the fact that they don't scale at all. Even first level spells become better as the mage gains levels, why not fighter feats? Make them scale with BAB and you are in a much better shape!

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

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

NineThePuma
2010-04-22, 06:36 AM
I'd want some combination of the following as options;

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

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NineThePuma
2010-04-22, 06:39 AM
Alternately, feats upgrade over time to the next part of the tree, as he gains levels and meets prerequisites; he gets Two Weapon Fighting and it will AUTOMATICALLY give him every TWF feat he meets the prereqs for, max of one per level.

Runestar
2010-04-22, 07:00 AM
If it is not too much trouble, could I trouble anyone planning to quote lengthy posts to hide them in the spoiler box? Perhaps it has been a long day and I am more tired than I realise, but I personally find it annoying to have to scroll through so many pages of an entry I have already read, only to see such a short response.

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

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

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

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Followed by Kobold's response. :smallsmile:

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

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

Eldan
2010-04-22, 07:34 AM
What I have a problem with is the issue that a lot of these suggestions mainly give numerical bonuses, of which the fighter easily can gets hands full. Yes, weapon focus would be more useful if it gave a bonus of, let's say, 1+1/4 fighter levels.
However, what the fighter primarily needs are more combat options, not higher numbers. An Übercharger is perfectly able to kill a creature in one hit, if he can actually hit it. A tank can stay alive if people actually attack him, instead of shutting him down or ignoring him.
The list goes on. What the fighter needs are more options.

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

Roderick_BR
2010-04-22, 10:27 AM
Yeah, I can see a number of feats benefiting from that. The WF/WS feats could become quite powerful, Iron Will might be a better option, Dodge could be made useful. But what about feats that grant abilities, rather than static bonuses? It costs my Fighter 9% of my entire class' abilities to be able to wield a spiked chain, or wield two weapons (more, if I want more than one attack with the second weapon). Would "greater" feats (WF/WS, TWF, etc.) become obsolete or unnecessary (not that that's a bad thing)? What about feats that already scale, like Power Attack?

In a way, I like that better than just adding more feats, since there are some nice options out there that no one uses because they simply aren't powerful enough at higher levels (Iron Will, for example). It still doesn't give the Fighter many new options, though - just better versions of the feats that are already available.
I've seen several takes on that, and it would be awesome. Have static bonuses increase when you have better BAB. Greater versions would either be removed for lack of need, or ones that grant more options would be mixed with the default ones, giving extra abilities as you level up. Power Attack is an example of strong feat that needs no change.

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

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

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

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-22, 05:07 PM
Every class in the game is balanced around 2 things : class abilities (A) and Feats (B), giving A+B. The only class ability of the fighter has is even more feats. So basicly, he has B+B. Unfortunatly, A+B does not equal B+B.

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

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

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

demidracolich
2010-04-22, 06:57 PM
Nitpicking, crusaders have indomitable soul, not mettle, though they both do the same thing.

demidracolich
2010-04-22, 07:01 PM
Another thing, incorporating maneuvers is a good way of balancing fighter, many people have tried it but there is still no really good fighter with maneuvers.

itastelikelove
2010-04-23, 02:23 AM
Lots of good stuff today! Let's see how concise i can make this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

On Quote etiquette: I agree with Runestar:

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

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


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

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

2) Some sort of bonus to Armor Class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

Eldan
2010-04-23, 02:39 AM
On feat trees:

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

Now, the question should of course be:

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

Yora
2010-04-23, 02:57 AM
I think using weapon groups might be a nice thing for fighter players. Even if Weapon Focus and Specialization aren't that good, applying the bonus to all swords instead of just longswords allows melee characters to be much more flexible.

Jota
2010-04-23, 02:59 AM
I don't want to rain on anyone parade because I like a lot of what is being thrown about here, but as you might guess, many of these have already been done. In particular, the Tome Fighter (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Fighter%2C_Tome_%283.5e_Class%29) (by Frank and K) incorporates a lot of these (commander, reach, ability to negate actions, other/multiple uses for/of swift and immediate actions, scaling feats, versatility, saves, so yeah, quite a bit). The relevant [Combat] feats are here (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Tome_Combat_Feats). The level of balance is supposed to be a transmuter wizard, or so I've been told, so it's quite strong, but it might give you a few ideas or even just give you an end product, if you're willing to work with something that capable.

Weimann
2010-04-23, 03:58 AM
Wonderful initiative! I'm not able to contribute properly due to poor system knowledge, but I will state two things that stuck me right away.

1) Take into account that there are really many many many types of fighters. The great warrior who gloriously slaughters his enemies in a heroic rage is one type. The upright soldier who form ranks, do his part by not breaking line and are individually weak but strong in numbers are one. The leader who overlooks such people can also be one, as can the archers and such that control a battlefield. (Okay, rangers use bows, but they are hunters and outdoorsmen. Fighters can use all weapons. I feel a bow spec can work wonders for a fighter as well, particularly within battlefield control.) Keep this in mind when determing what is thematic for the fighter class.

2) There is some aversion to giving the fighter a magical touch. In D&D, this is a problem because most everything that does anything functionally distinct from different kinds of killing is a spell or anything supernatural. Fighters are put at this natural disadvantage. I feel that skills need to at least toe the line to supernal, or the desire for "normality" will keep the utility of the class down.

Good luck :)

Eldan
2010-04-23, 04:13 AM
An idea I had on feats:

How about this: some feats are known as pretty useless, i.e. Weapon Focus. How about changing them to something like:

Weapon Focus

Choose a weapon. You gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls with that weapon.

Special: A fighter instead gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls per four fighter levels, and a damage equal to one half his fighter level with the chosen weapon.


Another problem:
You said there are many kinds of warriors, and that is true. However, quite a lof these are already covered well by other classes. Want to be a leader? Be a slightly reflavoured bard, a marshall or a Warblade focusing on the White Raven school.
Want to slaughter enemies left and right while trampling them into the blood-soaked mud, laughing and screaming as you are covered in gore? That's a barbarian.

Basically, the problem is finding the fighter's niche, not giving him abilities which left him also partially cover another class'.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-04-23, 04:18 AM
I think the 'feats scale' idea has a lot of merit to it because it frees up future feats which would otherwise be devoted to doing that very same thing to pursue other options.

Case in point: If I pick up TWF, then I automatically can ITWF and GTWF when my BAB gets high enough to have iterative attacks of the appropriate number. This frees up 2 feats, which can then be put towards more interesting options.

Honestly, I'd like to see the situation wherein someone faces a Fighter in combat and goes "Whoa, I'm not gettin' close to that mo-fo... screw dat!"

This is a flexible class with several possible roles, including Meat Shield, Beatstick, and Battlefield Control. Eventually, if we design it right, you might even be able to be all three. But only if you are a Fighter.

The biggest flaw with Fighter is that everyone ELSE gets feats as well, and can generally cherry-pick the best feats for themselves without needing to be a Fighter. There is nothing unique to a Fighter that another class can't also pick up, along with class abilities. This is, in my opinion, what needs to be fixed about the Fighter. Give it options, sure, but give it options other classes don't have access to.

With this philisophy in mind, I propose the following simple change:

Replace bonus feats with Style Points. A Fighter gets Style Points at the same rate he used to get Bonus Feats.

Style Points may be used to purchase fighter-specific abilities, or they may be used to purchase bonus feats. These fighter specific abilities may include the following:

* Taunt (Ex)
The Fighter can make an Intimidate check much like a Demoralize option, only without any bonuses from fear effects. If successful, the target of the Taunt must target the Fighter for (some number of rounds) as his primary target of hostility. This will not work on Mindless opponents, but is not mind-affecting.

* Crippling Blow (Ex)
The Fighter targets his opponent's limbs, rather than going for the kill shot. As an attack action, he may make an opposed attack roll. If he wins, he lands a crippling blow, which impairs that limb for (some number of rounds). However, if he fails, his opponent gets an immediate Attack of Opportunity against him for leaving himself open. His opponent ONLY gets this AoO if the fighter looses the contested attack roll.

Eldan
2010-04-23, 04:24 AM
A nice idea. Intimidate really is a skill the fighter should be using more anyway.


Suggestion: the fighter, as he is now, has a lot of empty levels. Instead of replacing all the bonus feats, how about this:

We leave the bonus feats he has. There are so many fighter bonus feats in all the books out there, it would be sad to waste them all. Make a few new ones as well, and bind them into trees.

Then take the empty levels and give them the things you suggest on the other levels. An intimidation tree (the barbarian has it via feats, why not the fighter) is a good one as well. There are various intimidation feats, we could give similar abilities to the fighter. Free intimidate attempts against enemies he attacks in melee, perhaps?

I still dislike the taunt thing, however. Many have said it, it feels too much like mind control, even if it isn't, by the rules. How would your players react if you told them "you feel that it is necessary to stab the guy in adamantine mountain plate instead of the robed old man blasting you with searing rays of fire, since he seems much more dangerous, and he is taunting you."

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-04-23, 04:44 AM
I still dislike the taunt thing, however. Many have said it, it feels too much like mind control, even if it isn't, by the rules. How would your players react if you told them "you feel that it is necessary to stab the guy in adamantine mountain plate instead of the robed old man blasting you with searing rays of fire, since he seems much more dangerous, and he is taunting you."

The guy in adamantine mountain plate who just insinuated that your <parental figure> was overly enamored with a/n <opposing faction/race> which is why his looks were clearly diminished, although a <other opposing faction/race> might consider it fetching...

Piss something off, they're going to go after you.

They were only suggestions, mind you, but the concept of a resource used to customize your Fighter with options not available to any other class is what I was trying to drive home.

Yora
2010-04-23, 09:05 AM
I think the best way to realisitcally build agro is not by forcing other creatures to attack the fighter, but to make it in their very best interest to do so.

There's a fighter and a wizard and the fighter steps in the way of an attacker. As it is, the attacker will just run by the fighter because the wizard is more likely to kill him, and you can take him out without worrying too much about that guy with the sword. Just ignore him now and deal with him after the real threat is out of the fight.

Instead the attacker should focus on the fighter, because the fighter will just tear him to shreds if he ignores him for two or three rounds to kill the wizard. You don't have to taunt him to attack you, he could attack you purely for the sake of self preservation.

How to do that? I currently have no idea.
Rogues have sneak attack, which has a very similar effect but just giving it to fighters would be cheap.
Maybe something like reversed dodge: The fighter concentrates on one target, and that target has to attack the fighter, or the fighter gets a big boost in attack power.

One thing I like about the Tome Fighter is the ability to make 5 ft. steps as an immediate action. That way, when you see an enemy nearby trying something funny, you might get close enough to get an attack of opportunity, or even block his path.

Tactical Combat (General)
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: Once per round, you can take a 5 ft. step as an immediate action. This 5. ft. step is in addition to the one you can make on your turn.

What also might be interesting, is to allow a 5 ft. step after every attack.

Follow Up Attack (General)
Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus +6.
Benefit: When you make a full attack, you can make a 5 ft. step after each of your attacks. When you have no target to attack, you can skip one of your attacks but make the associated 5. ft step anyway. For example, a 12th level fighter could make one attack at +12 BAB and then take a 5 ft. step. He could then skip his seccond attack with a BAB of +7 and take another 5 ft. step, and then make his third attack at +2 BAB. You can not move distances greater than your normal movement rate.

I'm unsure about TWF though. Should the number of 5 ft. steps be limited by the number of attacks by BAB, or by the actual number of attacks the character has? Moving down a corridor for 30 ft. and hacking at 6 people on your way would be pretty cool. Seems a bit powerful, but then TWF is considered pretty weak.

I would also like a rewrite for Whirlwind Attack. It requires 4 feats, 3 of which are based on dodging and movement, and you do neither during the round you use Whirlwind Attack. Only Combat Expertise would be somewhat justified.

Eldan
2010-04-23, 09:49 AM
How about...

Block the Way

Prerequisite: Str 13, Combat Reflexes, Tactical Combat, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, BAB +8

Benefit: When making a five-foot step outside your own turn using Tactical Combat, you may step in the path of another creature's movement. If you do so, make a bull rush attempt against that creature. If you are successful, that creature's movement ends in the square it occupied when you first came into direct contact. If you win by 5 points or more, the target falls prone.




Oh, and perhaps also add Cleave to the requirements of Follow-up attack?
Actually, wasn't there already something like this, with steps between cleave attacks?

Roderick_BR
2010-04-23, 10:35 AM
I think that a fighter should both be a threat to creatures when defending (currently, most damage dealers are chargers, and it's obvious that you can't run in this case, and full attacks are not threatening enough).
So, new options for combat are needed.

Some ideas: Have Stand Still be a combat option instead of a feat (you can make a bullrush like check to stop movement, in the same way that you can make a trip attempt)
Then the feat would be something like: Gain +2 bonus to your attack of opportunity and bullrush attempt when caused by a foe that is running past you, and you still deal your normal damage for that attack of opportunity.

Some defender like feat ideas too:

Ally Defender: Any ally within range of your threatened area receives a +2 (deflection? cover? untyped?) bonus to his AC, as you use your own attacks to foil your enemy's advances. Special: If you do the defense or total defense action, or use Combat Expertise, you can transfer the AC bonuses to your ally intead of yourfelf. Penalties for your own attack rolls apply as normal.
(notice that this allow a group to "turtle" around, protecting each other. Of course, it'll make group attacks difficult, unless the people in the back use reach weapons, ranged, or spells, and makes them easy targets for AoEs)

Avenging Guardian: Whenever an enemy attacks one of your allies, you can make an attack of opportunity against that enemy with a +2 bonus to your attack roll.
(just another opportunist-like feat)

DracoDei
2010-04-23, 11:40 AM
Well, I have several pre-existing contributions to this... please tell me what you think, since most of these got very little to no review (partially my fault in some cases since some of them were always part of a larger post...), and I think this project puts people in the right frame of mind to consider them in their proper context.

Of all things a SPELL... because they messed this up trying to fix something else in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, and teamwork tastes good to me...
True Haste.

True Haste
Target: One Creature Touched

As per Haste(Including which level it is for which classes) except that no bonus to base movement rate is given, but if the creature forgoes the extra attack granted, or does not attack in a given round it gains an additional move action (which may ONLY be used for movement).

Hey presto, its allows full-attacks after movement again! I could see giving this a 30 foot range for casting it... still should be single target, and be aware that it turns dragons that can cast it into even more of mobile wood-chippers into which PCs get feed than they already are... Also useful to allow Monks to break land-speed records, but that is another thing entirely...


HOUSE RULE that allows fighters to do what low level arcanists should do when really trapped (note that the reflex save stuff is new as of this posting, rather than being pre-existing like the rest of this):

Two new actions:
Steel Will fighting
Equivalent action to Fighting Defensively, provides no bonuses to AC or Reflex saves, but DOES give a +2 to Will saves instead.

Total mental defense
Equivalent action to Total Defense, provides no bonuses to AC or Reflex saves, but DOES give a +4 to Will saves instead.


Also (and less importantly for fighters) :
Evasive Maneuvers:
Equivalent action to Fighting Defensively, provides no bonuses to AC, but DOES give a +2 to Reflex saves instead.

Total Evasion:
Equivalent action to Total Defense, provides no bonuses to AC or, but DOES give a +4 to Reflex saves instead.

Feel free to increase the bonuses from +2/+4 to +3/+6 if this seems under-powered... even +4/+8 might be allowed by some groups (but that would have to be a feat or fighter class feature or something). Also, since they both involve physically avoiding/countering threats, you might allow Fighting Defensively and Total Defense to ALSO give bonuses to reflex saves, INSTEAD of having Evasive Maneuvers and Total Evasion as separate actions from those two.
For another house rule, by someone else, that deals with another problem, see "Attribute skill points" listed in the feats section.

FEATS:
Feats are the fighter's current bread and butter... here are my feats, all of which are useful to fighters.

Similar to "Block the Way" (and perhaps inspiring it? I like to pretend people actually read my work even after it is past the "necro-zone"...)
Blocker and Improved Blocker (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113722)

Blocker [Fighter]
"You shall not pass!"
Prerequisites: Expertise, Combat Reflexes, BAB +3
Benefits: For the purposes of the Total Defense action, you count as having 5 ranks in the tumble skill. When you take the full defense action, your ability to make attacks of opportunity is not negated, and you gain +2 to hit with such attacks. The DC of tumble checks to avoid provoking an AoO from you is increased by 5.
If you do not take a 5 foot step on your turn while using total defense as a full-round action, then once per round you may take a 5 foot step as an immediate action, before an action that would provoke an attack of opportunity from your new position, but not your old one is resolved. You must then make the attack of opportunity in question. If the provoking action is movement, the provoking character may negate the attack immediately after you move by stopping short in such a way that he is within your threatened area at the end of the move, but would not have provoked an AoO if you had started his turn in the square you now occupy.
Moving in this way does not break a Dwarven Defender's defensive stance, nor Stone Dragon Stances, nor a Deepstone Sentinel's Mountain Fortress stance, nor any other similar stance or ability.
Normal: You may not make attacks of opportunity in a round you took full defense and may not move as a reaction to create an attack of opportunity.
Special: A fighter may take this feat as one of his bonus feats.


Improved Blocker [Fighter]
"NONE of you shall pass!"
Prerequisites: Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Blocker, BAB +10
Benefits: When using the Blocker Feat, you may may move a total distance up to your speed in 5' steps each round (as measured from the end of one your turns to the start of the next), but only as provided by the Blocker feat (plus a single 5' step on your turn) and only as long as you have AoO's remaining. This means that you may only take a single 5' step each time someone moves in such a way as to activate the Blocker feat.
Moving in this way does not break a Dwarven Defender's defensive stance, nor Stone Dragon Stances, nor a Deepstone Sentinel's Mountain Fortress stance, nor any other similar stance or ability no matter how many 5' steps are taken.

Special: A fighter may take this feat as one of his bonus feats.


And here is how we make "Dumb Jock" not an oxymoron any more... in fact, you might consider making this feat FREE for all fighters who qualify (note that the GM should probably allow players to reduce their INT scores so they qualify so that GOOD rolls at character creation don't mess them up). Don't let the slightly silly flavor text fool you either...
Brawn Over Brain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4505657#post4505657)

Brawn Over Brain[General]
Some people use their understanding to gain greater insight into how to perform better physically... others don't let having the attention span of a squirrel on a sugar rush stop them from having the acrobatic skills of one.
Prerequisites:
Intelligence 11 or lower (minimum 3)
Strength greater than Intelligence
Constitution greater than Intelligence
Dexterity greater than Intelligence
Benefits: Replace your intelligence modifier with a 1 when calculating the number of skill points you get each level.
Drawbacks:
You may not put skill points into or take feats that give bonuses to NORMALLY cross-class Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma based skills, and such skills that NORMALLY are class skills count as cross class (but never exclusive to another class). This means (for example) that a Rogue with this feat can still put skill points into Use Magic Device, but he only gets 1 skill rank per 2 skill points he puts into it and a can have a maximum number of ranks in the skill of (Character Level +3)/2.
For the above purposes, "Speak Language" is considered to be an Intelligence based skill. which means, for example, that a fighter with this feat can't put skill-points into "Speak Language" and a bard with this feat would treat "Speak Language" as a cross-class skill. There are still no skill rolls involved and still no such thing as "partially fluent" in a language.
Normal: The number of skill points you get each level is affected by your intelligence modifier.
Special: A fighter may take this as one of her bonus feats. A Monk may take this feat as her first level bonus feat instead of Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist.

I also saw a post a while back about a house-rule variation on how skill points that should work that fixes this same problem... Let me see if I can find a link... Ah, here we go...
Attribute Skill points (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124289) by Random832.
First post, and one later post, reproduced here for tab reduction (see full thread if it isn't clear).


Our example will be a 6-INT Barbarian.

First, lay out your stat bonuses in order from largest to smallest:
16 STR 3
15 DEX 2
14 CON 2
12 WIS 1
10 CHA 0
6 INT -2

Add your class skill points (4 for a barbarian) to each row:

STR 7
DEX 6
CON 6
WIS 5
CHA 4
INT 2

If at this point, any of the numbers is 0 or less, set it to 1.

You now have seven skill points total for this level. No more than six may be spent on DEX or CON skills, no more than five may be spent on WIS skills, no more than four on CHA skills, no more than two on INT skills.

Or, put differently, take the differences between each one and the next below
STR 1
DEX
CON 1
WIS 1
CHA 2

You must spend one point on a STR skill (or lose it, I suppose). Then you have one more point you can spend on any skills that use STR DEX or CON. Then the next point can be spent on any of those or a WIS skill. Then the next two points can be spent on CHA skills in addition to those already listed, and your last two skill points can be spent on any skill.

Speak Language and Mental skill tricks are considered INT-based. Interaction skill tricks are considered CHA-based. Manipulation and Movement skill tricks are considered DEX-based.

On first level, obviously, multiply these numbers by four.

This scheme obviously tends to benefit people who dump INT, as it results in higher skill point totals generally for non-INT-based characters. Conversely, someone with 18 INT who dumps CHA isn't going to be able to put as many ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.

The general goal is to remove INT-dependency from classes which rely on skill usage.

DM Option: Assign a different attribute as the basis for learning a skill than the one that gets added when rolling the skill. e.g. Con for Swimming or Dex for certain Perform skills.

DM Option: Make skill points gained above the int-based ones only allowed to buy class skills, or even buy class skills at the cross-class rate.

Well, the skill points you have only by virtue of your highest stat can only be spent on skills that use that stat.



Basically.

Think of it this way. The "#"s are arranged vertically by the number of skill points you would get based on that stat.

SDCWHI (H - cHarisma)
7 # ] This point can only be spent on STR skills
6 ### ] This point can be spent on S/D/C skills
5 #### ] This point can be spent on S/D/C/W skill
4 ##### ] These points can be spent on any non-INT skill
3 #####
2 ###### ] These points can be spent on any skill
1 ######
766542



Back to my feats, here is one that allows you to do a hit-and-run fighter, while still supporting your rogue buddy's sneak attack.
Gemini Strike (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6405965#post6405965)

Gemini Strike[General][Fighter]
You and a team-mate strike as one, speeding by to deliver such well coordinated blows that you gain the benefits of both hit-and-run tactics, and superior positioning... and then some.

Prerequisites:
Ride-by Attack OR Fly-by Attack OR Spring Attack, OR Swim-by Attack
Dodge AND Mobility
Sneak Attack +2d6 OR Skirmish +1d6/+1 OR BAB +6


Benefits:
Two or more allied creatures may activate who each have this feat may activate it when initiative is called for, but before it is actually rolled. They must declare which specific individuals they are activating it with, and all members of a group must have this feat. In such a case they both/all act on the lowest initiative in the group.
Alternatively, groups may be formed mid-combat by all prospective group members announcing such on their respective turns which are then delayed to an initiative 2 points lower than the lowest one in the group. IF any prospective group member elects not to enter the forming group, then the others already in the group may elect to proceed with only the members who are already delaying, who act immediately, in order of the initiatives they had before they started delaying.
While acting together, group members must use the same types of actions (Full round, Swift, Move Equivalent, Standard), in the same order, and each of these actions is taken simultaneously with every other member of the group. (although they may always use any type of action to do nothing at all to maintain this synchronization). If moving at the same time, they must expend proportionate (or equal if they have the same speed) amounts of their movement at the same times, although slowing down is modeled as expending movement without changing squares.
If two or more members of a group have each moved at least 10 feet, will (unless something changes to prevent them) move a further 10 feet, currently are creating a flank with each other against that opponent and are using any of the feats that allow movement both before and after an attack, then they each gain an additional +1 to hit against that opponent, and each deal an additional 1d6 of Sneak Attack damage, provided that individual is already dealing at least +2d6 of Sneak or Skirmish damage.
Normal: Turns are taken in sequential order.
Special: A fighter may take this as one of her bonus feats.



This next one is a bit specialized, and if you think it is underpowered, just make uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge feats (perhaps with Fighter-level pre-requisites when taken as feats, rather than class features).
Ignore Opponent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94836)

Ignore Opponent [Fighter]
You can shut the unskillful out of your awareness in order to keep them from distracting you from more dangerous foes.
Prerequisites: WIS 13
Benefits: As a free action you may select one or more opponents that you did not attack on your current or previous turn to ignore. You may so designate:

Any opponent or opponents you wish during your turn.
Either one of a pair of flankers that just came into existance or to your awareness (such as if one of them was previously invisible) against you.
Any opponent that moves into a position where it threatens you or when you become aware of it in such a position (for instance if becomes visible where previously invisible).
The number of opponents you are ignoring at any one time may not exceed your Wisdom modifier. Ignored opponents do not count when determining whether you are flanked by non-ignored opponents, but you always count as flanked by and flat-footed against ignored opponents. When using the aid-another action ignored opponents only grant a +1 to AC or to-hit for opponents attacking you or for your attacks against other opponents. You may not target an ignored opponent specifically, including with the Dodge feat and similar feats, effects, or manauvers. Ignoring resets at the start of your turn.
Normal: Anyone who threatens you counts towards causing you to be flanked, and the aid another action gives a +2 bonus.
Special: A fighter may take this as one of his bonus feats. If you later gain Improved Uncanny Dodge as a class feature (not from an item or spell), then you may retrain, replacing this feat with any other feat you could have qualified for at the level you took it.

Should this be turned into a plain-old combat action?

Should a Concentration modifier of +3 be a prerequisite?

Is the retraining clause going to be too much book-keeping?



Weapon Enchantments:
Flickering (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62566)
A weapon enchantment I came up with. I have heard it said that fighter types have too few options, this might be one more option... although it does still come down to hit-point damage.


Flickering
Upon command this weapon and the arm(s) that wield it split into multiple slightly translucent versions of themselves, literally existing in more than one place at a time. These versions move somewhat independently, sliding through each-other, merging, splitting, and weaving around each-other.

When this effect is activated, all attack rolls with it are replaced with Reflex saves by the target. The DC is 10 + 1/2 the attack bonus for that particular attack (including any circumstance bonuses or penalties that may apply). On a failed save the strike deals damage normally on a successful save the attack is considered to have missed. Miss chances, damage reduction, Deflect Arrows, etc still apply if they would have against the original attack (E.G. without this enchantment), however the attack deals full damage and more against swarms, counting as an area of effect attack for that purpose. Improved Evasion is also effective against it, granting the target half damage even on a failed save. Iterative attacks may be made with the weapon at decreasing DCs as per the number of attacks that would normally be allowed. Ranged weapons with this enchantment active bestow the effect on their ammunition which splits into quasi-real copies of itself in mid-flight. Melee weapons and the arms that wield them also appear to have their existence split between multiple locations at once. The effects of this enchantment may be halted or resumed as a free action by the wielder with a word.
May not be used in conjunction with Power Attack. Functions normally (reducing the DC in exchange for AC) with Expertise. Negates precision based damage (but NOT any to associated to-hit bonuses, such as from a ranger's favored enemy bonuses), renders Keen, Vorpal, and Improved Critical moot. Projectiles enchanted in this manner split as soon as they are fired/thrown. Ranged weapons with this enchantment display no visual effect themselves, but bestow the enchantment on their ammunition.
Faint Illusion (and Transmutation?); Caster level 5th; Craft Magical Weapons and Armor, Shadow Conjuration, Mirror Image; Price +3 bonus.



This one deals with a problem I have NEVER had come up in a game, but I will include it for the sake of argument.
Mole (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2913403&postcount=46)

Mole (+1 enchantment equivalent?, Set cost?)
Primarily found on large non-piercing melee weapons and occasionally on projectiles, most (all in the case of a projectile) of this weapon passes through worked and unworked earth and stone (including UNworked metal) like it wasn't there (cf brilliant energy). This allows the use of big weapons without penalty in narrow tunnels. There are two styles of this. One leaves the grip area as the unenchanted portion. The other has a rock shaped protrusion for the pommel or as a feature on the non-attacking. This makes for the occasional bruised knuckles when a strike goes a little too far into a wall, but allows dropping the weapon on bare rock or dirt to appear unarmed (just a rock laying there...). For projectiles this turns cover into concealment in many cases, and even blind fire through a castle wall can be pretty demoralizing (or even effective with flame arrows). In any case, back-up weapons are a must in case of earth elementals, and stone and clay golems.

Termite
The even rarer version of the above, phases through wood instead of earth. Popular among druids, rangers, elves, gnomes, and others who often fight in dense underbrush.

Eldan
2010-04-23, 12:13 PM
Wait...

evasive action gives a bonus to reflex saves instead of reflex saves? :smallconfused:

DracoDei
2010-04-23, 12:21 PM
Wait...

evasive action gives a bonus to reflex saves instead of reflex saves? :smallconfused:

Fixed (I think...)

I probably originally intended that Fighting Defensively and Total Defense would ALSO give the Reflex save bonus, since both involve dodging around. That might still be a good way to do it... in fact, let me go edit in that as another possible tweak to the rules.

Eldan
2010-04-23, 01:13 PM
Gemini strike is enormously complicated to read through, though I get what it does. And I'm quite certain you can't say it in any simpler way. Interesting, though.

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-23, 02:21 PM
The niche of the fighter should be, IMHO, fighting skill. To continue my idea from my previous post (here), the "Super Feats" would include boosted version of fighter feats. For exemple, the weapon focus feat could be made to scale with levels, TWF would give the next steps automatically, etc.

This would show that even tough other classes can gain these abilities, the have other things to focus on (there other class abilities) and cannot master them like a fighter, who focuses all his training on stuff like that.

Should he be better at, say, archery than an archery centered class? No, but he should be able to do other things better than him at the same time.

Zeful
2010-04-23, 02:27 PM
Gemini Strike[General][Fighter]
You and a team-mate strike as one, speeding by to deliver such well coordinated blows that you gain the benefits of both hit-and-run tactics, and superior positioning... and then some.

Prerequisites:
Ride-by Attack OR Fly-by Attack OR Spring Attack, OR Swim-by Attack
Dodge AND Mobility
Sneak Attack +2d6 OR Skirmish +1d6/+1 OR BAB +6


Benefits:
Two or more allied creatures may activate who each have this feat may activate it when initiative is called for, but before it is actually rolled. They must declare which specific individuals they are activating it with, and all members of a group must have this feat. In such a case they both/all act on the lowest initiative in the group.
Alternatively, groups may be formed mid-combat by all prospective group members announcing such on their respective turns which are then delayed to an initiative 2 points lower than the lowest one in the group. IF any prospective group member elects not to enter the forming group, then the others already in the group may elect to proceed with only the members who are already delaying, who act immediately, in order of the initiatives they had before they started delaying.
While acting together, group members must use the same types of actions (Full round, Swift, Move Equivalent, Standard), in the same order, and each of these actions is taken simultaneously with every other member of the group. (although they may always use any type of action to do nothing at all to maintain this synchronization). If moving at the same time, they must expend proportionate (or equal if they have the same speed) amounts of their movement at the same times, although slowing down is modeled as expending movement without changing squares.
If two or more members of a group have each moved at least 10 feet, will (unless something changes to prevent them) move a further 10 feet, currently are creating a flank with each other against that opponent and are using any of the feats that allow movement both before and after an attack, then they each gain an additional +1 to hit against that opponent, and each deal an additional 1d6 of Sneak Attack damage, provided that individual is already dealing at least +2d6 of Sneak or Skirmish damage.
Normal: Turns are taken in sequential order.
Special: A fighter may take this as one of her bonus feats.


I think you may want to write it more like this:
Gemini Strike
Prerequisites: Ride-by Attack OR Fly-by Attack OR Spring Attack, OR Swim-by Attack
Dodge AND Mobility
Sneak Attack +2d6 OR Skirmish +1d6/+1 OR BAB +6


Benefit:You may act simultaneously with any other willing ally or creature which shares your initiative count and possesses this feat. You are still limited to you're normal economy of actions in a turn (Standard, Move, Swift, Immediate, and Free). But you and your ally may determine the order of both of your actions to the best strategic effect.
If you and your ally attack a single target while utilizing the other benefits of this feat you receive a +1 to all attack and damage rolls against that target for the duration of the turn for each participating ally. You also are considered Flanking and Aiding Another for the purpose of that attack (even if you ordinarily wouldn't qualify for flanking, such as using a ranged weapon, or not standing on opposite sides of a monster) receiving bonuses as appropriate.
If you and your ally end you conjoined turn standing within 5ft of each other you receive a +1 bonus to AC and all saves for each participating ally within five feat. You receive the bonus's of any of the following feats your ally possesses as if you possessed them yourself: Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Dodge or Combat reflexes. You also threaten an area as if you were standing in the square occupied by any participating ally within 5ft in addition to you're own space. These bonuses last until the beginning of your next turn.
Normal: Turns between characters acting on the same initiative go in order of highest initiative modifier.

Because the impression I got from what you wrote is that the group acts as one organism doing the same thing (like synchronized swimming) which is kinda silly. It's also really complicated. The above writing is much clearer, and provides bonuses for being a unit rather than a puppet attached to one character's action. Some of the bonuses are big (Flanking and Aid Another bonuses to all attacks on the same target and +1 attack and damage per participant on top of it. Threat as if you occupied 2+ spaces and "free" feats.) but they're all thematically appropriate (creating openings through attacking simultaneously, watching each other's backs and so forth).

DracoDei
2010-04-23, 04:33 PM
I think you may want to write it more like this:
Gemini Strike
Prerequisites: Ride-by Attack OR Fly-by Attack OR Spring Attack, OR Swim-by Attack
Dodge AND Mobility
Sneak Attack +2d6 OR Skirmish +1d6/+1 OR BAB +6


Benefit:You may act simultaneously with any other willing ally or creature which shares your initiative count and possesses this feat. You are still limited to you're normal economy of actions in a turn (Standard, Move, Swift, Immediate, and Free). But you and your ally may determine the order of both of your actions to the best strategic effect.
If you and your ally attack a single target while utilizing the other benefits of this feat you receive a +1 to all attack and damage rolls against that target for the duration of the turn for each participating ally. You also are considered Flanking and Aiding Another for the purpose of that attack (even if you ordinarily wouldn't qualify for flanking, such as using a ranged weapon, or not standing on opposite sides of a monster) receiving bonuses as appropriate.
If you and your ally end you conjoined turn standing within 5ft of each other you receive a +1 bonus to AC and all saves for each participating ally within five feat. You receive the bonus's of any of the following feats your ally possesses as if you possessed them yourself: Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Dodge or Combat reflexes. You also threaten an area as if you were standing in the square occupied by any participating ally within 5ft in addition to you're own space. These bonuses last until the beginning of your next turn.
Normal: Turns between characters acting on the same initiative go in order of highest initiative modifier.

Because the impression I got from what you wrote is that the group acts as one organism doing the same thing (like synchronized swimming) which is kinda silly. It's also really complicated. The above writing is much clearer, and provides bonuses for being a unit rather than a puppet attached to one character's action. Some of the bonuses are big (Flanking and Aid Another bonuses to all attacks on the same target and +1 attack and damage per participant on top of it. Threat as if you occupied 2+ spaces and "free" feats.) but they're all thematically appropriate (creating openings through attacking simultaneously, watching each other's backs and so forth).


Some of the ways you said things (especially the way the action-types have to be synced) might be clearer than the way I did (I will let others determine that, since we both know what we individually meant). But the changes you made are not the way I intended it at all.

Flanking should NOT be free with the feat, that actually kills the entire thematic point that I ORIGINALLY designed the feat for (see Castor and Pollux (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6377600&postcount=32), noting the section on their combat tactics, and the mechanics of the Arc Vests). If you want something like that, then my suggestion would be to also grab adaptable Flanker for the character(s), or make it a separate feat that requires mine as a pre-requisite. (Not that I would be uninterested in knowing how actual play turned out with your version).

If the feat is under-powered I could see throwing free "aid another" bonuses against common targets.

Sharing feats would be a real stretch to what I was thinking of, but possible if necessary for balance purposes (but it sounds REALLY powerful since you are getting multiple feats for the price of one).

I think your version is probably overpowered... I shudder to think what a higher level parallel of Tucker's Kobolds could do with your version, but mine seems like it would be rather interesting. YMMV, and I would be interested to see what other people think...

FeydMourne
2010-04-23, 10:42 PM
This thread inspired an idea that might substitute for a taunting mechanism. I call it:

Harass - You may designate one opponent each Round that you intend to engage in combat. By making obvious threats against the opponent, they must devote a certain amount of attention to you during each Round. The result is as follows; if the designated opponent does not engage you in combat they provoke an Attack of Opportunity from you each Round you use this feature on them.

What do you think?

Zeful
2010-04-23, 11:09 PM
Some of the ways you said things (especially the way the action-types have to be synced) might be clearer than the way I did (I will let others determine that, since we both know what we individually meant).I modeled it after Descent: JitD. You control 1 of four characters and you have to decides who goes when as a group as there's no initiative stat to say who goes first. Most of the time it really doesn't matter beyond small tactics. This gives a lot of tactical flexibility, especially with Swift and Immediate action spells. Your's is tactically limiting (Everyone uses the same type of action in the same order as one character).


But the changes you made are not the way I intended it at all.

Flanking should NOT be free with the feat, that actually kills the entire thematic point that I ORIGINALLY designed the feat for (see Castor and Pollux (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6377600&postcount=32), noting the section on their combat tactics, and the mechanics of the Arc Vests). If you want something like that, then my suggestion would be to also grab adaptable Flanker for the character(s), or make it a separate feat that requires mine as a pre-requisite. (Not that I would be uninterested in knowing how actual play turned out with your version).
I included it because I figured it made sense. You could remove it you want.

As for the Arc Vests. I fail to see what Flanking has to do with their activation.


If the feat is under-powered I could see throwing free "aid another" bonuses against common targets.The entire feat seems to be about aiding another in some capacity. That much just made sense.


Sharing feats would be a real stretch to what I was thinking of, but possible if necessary for balance purposes (but it sounds REALLY powerful since you are getting multiple feats for the price of one).Only specific feats, and you have to be 5ft from someone who bought one of those feats with the remaining 4 feats they have (they use three meeting the prerequisites of yours, and none of them are on the list). I see no problem with it.


I think your version is probably overpowered... I shudder to think what a higher level parallel of Tucker's Kobolds could do with your version, but mine seems like it would be rather interesting. YMMV, and I would be interested to see what other people think...
Having at least two level 6 Kobold fighters is a little beyond the scope of Tucker's Kobolds. But yes the more people that use it in concert, the more powerful it gets.

DracoDei
2010-04-23, 11:35 PM
The general concept with it is to combine spring-attack with flanking, without granting the enemy anyone within melee range at the start of their turn.

With the arc vests for Castor and Pollux, change "melee range" to "charging range".

Also, any adventuring party where EVERYONE has that feat is either nuts, or very very nonstandard. Two, MAYBE three people should have it, everyone else should be doing other things... In addition, just because you HAVE the feat, doesn't mean you HAVE to use it every round...


Having at least two level 6 Kobold fighters is a little beyond the scope of Tucker's Kobolds. But yes the more people that use it in concert, the more powerful it gets.

Nah, nah... I am talking about the Wyrmling and Very Young green dragons with 5 or so class levels (or whatever) that you replace Tucker's Kobold's with when the party gets to higher levels... still using Tucker's Kobolds degree of skill in tactics...

Zeful
2010-04-24, 12:49 AM
The general concept with it is to combine spring-attack with flanking, without granting the enemy anyone within melee range at the start of their turn.I get that, but it seems kinda gimicky when you think about it, you have to have two characters that are melee exclusive and willing to use it at the same time. It seems linear. What I pictured was more of the Rogue rushing forward as the Ranger is covering him with arrows. And just as the Rogue is about to strike, he feels the sideways push of the Swift action Buff that the cleric dropped on him. And then blades meet bad guy as the fighter comes from behind and bull rushes him into a pit. Which I feel is more cinematic and appropriate for the game.


Also, any adventuring party where EVERYONE has that feat is either nuts, or very very nonstandard. Two, MAYBE three people should have it, everyone else should be doing other things... In addition, just because you HAVE the feat, doesn't mean you HAVE to use it every round...That's kind of why fighters have problems in D&D. If they get awesome abilities, they shouldn't use them every round or they should be very limited. This feat requires three not so great feats (Honestly, I'd change it to Improved Initiative, Mobility, and either 2d6+ Sneak Attack/Skirmish/Sudden Strike or +4 Base Attack Bonus) used by two people as well as this one. Your version doesn't provide enough benefits to make that initial investment worthwhile (I doubt mine does either, but I think it's fun).



Nah, nah... I am talking about the Wyrmling and Very Young green dragons with 5 or so class levels (or whatever) that you replace Tucker's Kobold's with when the party gets to higher levels... still using Tucker's Kobolds degree of skill in tactics...
Yeah, my version is pretty insane using Tucker's tactics (you start at +5 attack for each creature that chooses to activate the feat getting an additional +1 per person using the feat and attacking the same person from the feat, and an additional +2 from Aid Another when attacking the same target). Dragons, which can meet the prerequisites easily, could own a entire party using much younger dragons than one would expect.

nonsi
2010-04-24, 03:44 PM
Hi everyone.

For a long time now I’ve been lurking this forum, from which I’ve collected a sizeable amount of ideas.
I had no plans of getting out of the shadows, but then I saw this thread, which is the most practical and interesting Fighter discussion I’ve seen so far.

Okay. Given fixing the core Fighter was the initial incentive that drove me to embark on a journey for the creation of the most extensive set of house rules ever (as far as I am aware of) and given I’m convinced I have a valid solution for all the actual shortcomings of the core Fighter, I find it appropriate to step into the lights and share my solution.

Now before one tries to figure out my solution, it’s important to understand that using the core rules as they are slam-shuts the door on any hope of salvation for a purely mundane character (mundane in terms of no supernatural or spell-like abilities) in a system where other characters bend or even break reality with unnatural powers. Therefore, one must improve the basic martial combat mechanics.

I do not credit this fix purely to myself, as I’ve collected a lot my insights from others and more or less hijacked the most significant mechanical addendum that constitutes this fix. And still, I’ve been wrestling with myself for a very long time until I reached a satisfactory result.
Nevertheless, I believe this fix actually does the job and does it well. Referring to the tier system, I’d say my fix is a solid tier 3 class.

Before we continue, I’d like to point out that this fix folds the archetypes of the Fighter, Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Samurai and any other warrior that’s confined to the laws of physics into a single, highly customizable class – and there’s a good reason for that. They’re all sub-par and extremely limited in in-game versatility (with only the Fighter being somewhat versatile build-wise).


Okay, let’s get down to business.


In My House Rules (CLICK ME) (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/270794-my-3-5-house-rules-codex-now-fully-reorganized.html) there are several things that I believe to fix the core Fighter (in order of priority).
1. My Warrior class; entry #6.
2. Redefined Game Mechanics; entry #5.
3. Weapon Groups; entry #4.
4. Feats entry #2 (take whatever you feel like).


Now here are the instructions about how to use my Warrior class without the need to entirely reinvent the game with my house rules:

The class should be taken as is. It presents an extensive array of unique features which are useful on a high frequency basis in the following manners (and more):
- Doesn’t trail in the action-economy competition.
- Has high mobility.
- Outclasses a Monk-Paladin gestalt in terms of survivability, recovery and overall lasting power.
- Can use combat feats in a manner that no other class comes close.
- Has a lot of skill-related options (making it also more than useful in out-of-combat situations).
- Given the above, can serve as an effective defender.
- Has unparalleled built-in weapons versatility.
- Has only 3 relatively boring levels, in which it only gains a bonus feat – and even those can be made significant given the right choices.
- Has build options which are unparalleled by all except non-spontaneous spellcasters.

In the Redefined Game Mechanics spoiler, the relevant issues are:
- AC
- Armors, Shields and Helmets
- Feint – Redefined (brings back Feint to the warriors’ ballpark)
- Force Effects (critical)
- Grapple
- Multiple Attacks and Movement (critical)
- Overrun – Redefined (just to finally make it a valid combat option)
- Shield Another (quite essential)

The Weapon Groups entry has several purposes:
- Better balance between the different weapons (you'd probably want to disregard the rules (tables) regarding different attack-bonuses for different weapons).
- Weapon-Proficiency acquisition that’s free of feat payment - including for exotic weapons.
- Improved Weapon Focus and Specialization carry more punch. Weapon Supremacy is definitely much more significant.
- Even more combat option.

The Feats section (without getting too much into specifics) brings shields’ validity back to life and brings yet more options.


Now I know what people might say: “some of your suggestions help other classes, not just warriors”.
While I admit this to be true, the impact they’d have for warriors would significantly outshine any contribution they’d grant other classes.


Note: In my house rules, Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge are condensed into a single feature. Anyone who finds this condensation undesired (once you figured out what my Warrior’s Combat Focus feature does and how it works) can simply rule that while Combat Focus is active, the Warrior gains the benefit of Improved Uncanny Dodge.


I’ll be checking this thread in the next few days, just in case anyone has question regarding the above, so feel free to ask.

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 03:27 AM
Jota: thanks for those links. Someone mentioned the Tome Fighter somewhere before, and I had no idea what they were talking about. There's some really great stuff there, and it looks like a really powerful Fighter. But don't worry! That'll never be enough for us! I doubt there'll ever be a Fighter that pleases everyone...the real fun here is telling everyone what we want to see. Or using other people's ideas to make our own Fighter that does what We want.

Eldan: The more I think about your feat tree idea, the more I like it. In fact, by making a branched feat tree with maybe 10-14 feats total, and a really good capstone feat at the end of each branch...maybe add some synergy between the capstone feats...you could make a really decent Fighter. Customization would basically depend on which tree you pick, and whether you finish every branch on your main tree, or take half of one tree and half of another. Dabbling in more than that would probably be unwise, since you wouldn't get many of the best feats, and they probably wouldn't be ones made to work together.

Bergor Terraf: I think we all agree that the Fighter's niche is "fighting skill"...the problem is that "fighting" is such a broad term. Especially in D&D, where there are so many different kinds of combat. Anyway...I think that a Fighter should be able to surpass a ranger or scout's skill with a bow in combat, if that's where he chooses to focus his energy. The Fighter can have combat archery, the ranger can have archery, woodsmanship, and wild animals, and the scout can have archery, woodsmanship, and guerrilla tactics. That said, I also don't think we really need to work on archer-fighters much. Since they shouldn't be in the middle of the battlefield, there aren't quite as many tactical options with archery. Just stand back and shoot, and maybe have some sort of tactical effect on some of the arrows. I guess my point here is...i dunno...I guess Fighters should be good at archery, and maybe get some fun tricks, but shouldn't be encouraged to specialize too far in that direction because, as large-HD heavy-armor-capable characters, they have more potential to be useful in melee combat. So, moving on,,,"super feats". There's some good potential there, but I still think that Fighters would benefit a lot from a few unique class abilities. Unless you go as far as the feats used by the "Tome Fighter", some of which actually grant entirely new abilities at each upgrade. Even then, though, it would be nice for Fighters to have something all their own that no one else can do. Or...maybe you could have the Fighter's special ability be the ability to unlock the higher levels of the "super feats". Then you could have the upgrades be based on Fighter level, rather than BAB, like it is for the Tome Feats.

nonsi: Thanks for joining us, and glad you found this discussion interesting/inspiring/whatever! :smallcool:

nonsi and DracoDei: I'll read all of your stuff eventually, but that's quite a lot to get through...

"aggro" seems to be one of the hardest problems to work through...probably because it's not part of D&D. Even the language we use comes from WoW, as far as i can tell. The only built-in system that looks like it was meant to keep people from ignoring melee characters is AoOs - and those don't do that good of a job on their own, since they're so easy to avoid. Anyhow...here are a few of my ideas on making it necessary for enemies to target the beefcakes. (some of these haven't been thought through completely, they're just what came up when I started thinking about this. Don't expect too much.)

Bodyguarding - There have been several variations on this theme before, most granting shield or cover bonuses. what would be more useful would be if the fighter could absorb half or all of an ally's damage. That way, it simply wouldn't be worth attacking the Fighter's allies, since the damage wouldn't have its full effect. The problem here is that I can't fluff it so that it isn't magical...

Also on the theme of Bodyguarding...how about the ability to "tackle" (bull rush) an ally as an immediate action, and take the blow that was meant for them. As you level, you could initiate the tackle from farther away, or maybe even work up to the point where your timing is such that you can cause a spellcaster to accidentally target you at the last second, instead of your ally.

I like the idea of marking a target (maybe multiple targets at higher levels), and getting bonuses against that target if they don't focus on you. Most people have suggested flat bonuses to hit and damage against the target (i like the idea of an AoO on the mark every round, but you still have to be in range for that). I would suggest a bonus that increases every round, up to your level (or half of it, at least). Maybe half your class level to hit and damage, doubled every round, up to a number of rounds equal to half your class level. Didn't pay attention to that level 10 fighter for four rounds? Maaaaybe you'd better look into that. Unless he can get an AoO on you. Then maaaaaybe you'd better just leave. Balanced by a low number of marks (maybe one per iterative attack, max 4 at lvl16), and the fact that you can negate the bonus by throwing your shoe at the Fighter (maybe not? should it require a sincere attack?). No bonus given if the target cannot make any sort of attack that will reach the Fighter....or maybe you only get the bonus if the foe attacks one of your allies (I think i like that one, but there still needs to be a caveat somewhere, so a burrowing fighter with tremorsense can't hide underground for 10 turns while his cleric buddies sit in their Sanctuaries, and then just pop out and eat all the enemies).

A quick idea on making feats that don't benefit non-Fighters: give your Fighters a class ability or two, then make feats that use that as a prerequisite. Although, if you're going to do that, you might as well just make all of your other feats into class abilities. Unless you make a lot of them, I guess. Then they would become customization options.

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-25, 01:41 PM
[...]So, moving on,,,"super feats". There's some good potential there, but I still think that Fighters would benefit a lot from a few unique class abilities. Unless you go as far as the feats used by the "Tome Fighter", some of which actually grant entirely new abilities at each upgrade. Even then, though, it would be nice for Fighters to have something all their own that no one else can do. Or...maybe you could have the Fighter's special ability be the ability to unlock the higher levels of the "super feats". Then you could have the upgrades be based on Fighter level, rather than BAB, like it is for the Tome Feats.

That was my intention. "Super Feats" was just a way to visualize what it would be like. They would look, feel, smell like feats, but they would be abilities that can only be obtained by fighters. I should really find a name for it.

Some of them would be upgraded version of fighter feats, showing that fighter are better in this department than non-fighter. Others would be all new abilities (BTW, I should try to read that tome fighter...). I had tought about making them scale with BAB, but fighter level (has you suggested) seems more appropriate.

Here are some exemples of abilities I came up while trying to fall asleep last night. (Numbers are just exemples, they will probably need to be changed)

Hard to pass : You take great effort in making life difficult for ennemies trying to pass by you. Squares you threaten are treated as difficult terrain.

At fighter level 5, each time they step into one of your threatenned squares, they take 1d4 damage.

At fighter level 10, you may take a 5 ft step during an enemy's turn. This is a free action that counts has one of your attacks of opportunities for that round.

At level 15, damage increases to 2d4.


Blocker : You use your shield not only to protect yourself, but your allies too. At the beginning of you turn, you may choose an ally adjacent to you. Until the beginning of your next turn, they gain a shield bonus equal to yours.

At fighter level 5, if that ally is the target of a melee attack, you can use a immediate action to be considered the target instead.

At fighter level 10, all allies adjacent to you gain a shield bonus equal to yours

At fighter level 15, if an ally adjacent to you is the target of an attack (melee, ranged or magical), you can use a immediate action to be considered the target instead.


Unbalancing strike : When fighting with a shield, you can use it to create oppenings. When an ennemy misses you with a melee attack but would have it your unshielded AC, you can use an attack of opportunity to make him unbalanced. They loose their Dex bonus to AC and take a -5 penalty against trip attemps. It lasts until the next attack or until the beginning of their next turn, wichever happens first.

At fighter level 5, the penalties last until the beginning of their next turn.

At fighter level 10, you can make a free attack against the target when using unbalancing strike.

Eldan
2010-04-25, 01:57 PM
I'm working on feat trees, currently. My first one would be the Bodyguard feat tree, and I need some more ideas for effects this could have. So far, I have:

-Share the AC bonus from your shield with an adjacent ally.
-Give cover to said ally.
-Change place with said ally as an immediate action 1/turn.
-By changing places, take an attack for the ally.
-Make an AoO against an enemy attacking said ally.

What else should such a bodyguard be able to do?

I'm aiming at around 8 feats for every such tree currently, just about enough that a dedicated non-fighter could take most of one tree as well. Other trees I'm thinking about would be a weapon-mastery tree, an übercharger tree and perhaps trees for the various battle maneuvers (feint, shield bash, disarm, trip and so on).

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 02:19 PM
Bergor Terraf:

Yeah, those are starting to look like good reasons to be a Fighter. And yeah, I think you would really like the Tome Fighter/Feats. I'll admit, I was a lot less impressed by the idea of scaling feats before I read that. For example, having TWF give you all of the advanced versions makes it less of a slap in the face to TWFighters, but it's still not that impressive. They gave all that just for taking the feat, and the upgrades give you shield bonuses, extra AoOs, and Feinting as a Swift action.

So yeah, I like where that's going. More paperwork than I'd like to do...but I would gladly steal them from you! :smallbiggrin:

(oh, and beware...they changed a lot more than just the Fighter class. They basically upgraded the whole combat system to be more friendly to martial characters. click on a link to 'the Edge' to see what they did with AoOs, grapple, bull rush, etc.)

Apalala
2010-04-25, 02:39 PM
Had some free time, so I whipped up a homebrew fighter. Uses the Pathfinder Fighter as a base, with a modified version of the Trailblazer Fighter's Punishing Strike. Also includes some relevant, scaling skill bonuses, better saves, a reroll mechanic, something nice at level ten, and something that makes a standard attack at least a little more worthwhile.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfd7zxz_74fdxxvmf8

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 03:49 PM
Eldan:

What I have in my head looks like this:

..........A
......../....\
.....B........C
..../...\...../...\
..D....E..F....G
...|.....|....|.....|
..H....I...J....K
...|.....|....|.....|
..L....M...N...O

15 feats in all. That's enough for a Fighter to master all of them and still have a few left over, while a human of any other class could still get two of the ultimate feats. L, M, N, and O should all be really extraordinary, but they should also all work well with each other, so that a Fighter who masters the tree should always be better at what he does than a non-Fighter who mastered half of the tree.

As for suggestions...
A: grant shield bonus to ally. As a move action, take ally's space and move ally into adjacent space.

B: grant cover against all attacks

D: grant 20% concealment
H: grant 50% concealment, and you count as solid to block line of sight/effect
L: Bodyguard two adjacent allies

E: take ally's place as immediate action, move ally to any adjacent square.
I: When taking ally's place, a spell targeted on ally is now targeted on you.
M: move up to your speed and take ally's place as an immediate action

C: AoO against anyone who attacks your ally (maybe give Combat Reflexes as bonus)

F: Add Fighter level to hit and damage on AoOs.
J: AoO against anyone who enters range while bodyguarding
N: AoOs can stun (or maybe just nauseate, or even just interrupt the current action)

G: throw weapon as preemptive AoO against foe attacking ally from range
K: charge (base speed only) as preemptive AoO against foe attacking ally from range
O: Reflect spell that targets ally to any target within range

That separates your Bodyguard tree into Defense and Retribution, then subdivides those into Protection and Absorption, and Melee and Ranged. One tree, two trunks, four branches, with each trunk about equal to one of the trees you were thinking about.

So, a level 20 Fighter could move and attack on his turn, then run back in order to take a hit meant for an ally, protect and cover/conceal a second ally as wall, and then when the enemy casters get started, he can charge or throw and try to stun if they're in range, or reflect their spell or cover allies or break line of effect if they aren't. A non-Fighter could only do half of that. Maybe top that off with Combat Reflexes, Robilar's Gambit, Quick Draw, and Throw Anything.

That's how I see a strong feat tree working. And there's some feat ideas for you, if you would rather put it together differently. Whaddaya think?

Eldan
2010-04-25, 04:12 PM
While I think that branching out isn't a bad idea, I'd also like to see capstone feats: feats really high up in the tree, with six or seven prerequisities, that no one except a fighter will ever reach without serious specializing. Your way, everyone can reach all of them with some investment. What I was thinking off was more along hte lines of.

...A
...B
./...\
C....D
E....F
G....H
.\.../
...I...

With I being something seriously bad-ass and special. Perhaps not that symetric, and with some more branches, but the trees should be long, otherwise, it's not really for the fighter. Fighters who specialize should see considerable returns.

Oh, perhaps a way to shield allies from area effects?

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-25, 04:34 PM
So yeah, I like where that's going. More paperwork than I'd like to do...but I would gladly steal them from you! :smallbiggrin:

Thanks. I'll probably try to do my own take on the fighter someday. Until then, i'll continue to share ideas in this thread to help others and brainstrom at the same time.

Speaking of ideas, I always liked Knaight idea of shift (found here). Basicly, you trade attack bonus higher than your opponent AC for different effects. Thats a way to make the static bonus the fighter always seems to get more dynamic.


@ Eldan

You could always merge your idea of capstone feats with itastelikelove idea of branching feat. Using the branching feat diagram, just add "P" that needs both "L" and "M" and "Q" that needs both "M" and "O".

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 04:51 PM
Alright, I see what you're saying. And I do kind of like the idea of the supersecret ultimate feat of power, at the very top of the tree.

Do you want non-Fighters to be able to reach that peak feat, though? As you have it (9 feats), I think only a Fighter or Warblade could reach it before epic levels. 7 feats by level + 1 for humans = 8 total, and most classes with bonus feats don't allow you much choice. (obviously, other feat trees would be friendlier to non-fighters, depending on the root feat, but I'm using your shield-ally feat as an example). I set mine up so that anyone who wants to spend every single one of their feats on the same tree could get one capstone feat, and humans could get two, but only Fighters could go beyond that.

Cover grants a bonus on Reflex saves. i'm sure we could find a way to protect prople from non-Reflex AoEs, too.

P: requires L and M. Initiate this ability as an immediate action. Taking any action cancels this effect. You are flat-footed, lose your Dex bonus to AC, and automatically fail all Reflex saves. The allies you are bodyguarding cannot be targeted by any attack, spell, or effect, and are immune to any spell or effect with an area that includes their squares, including ongoing effects. They may act normally, but instantly lose the benefit of this ability if they move away from you. The effect ends immediately when you die.

Q: Requires N and O. When you stun an opponent with an AoO, you may immediately make an additional attack at the same bonus, which has a chance to paralyze the opponent. If that attack succeeds, you may immediately make a coup-de-grace against the same opponent.

There...now mine are as long as yours. :smallwink:

(Edit: hah - my idea got ninja'd. good job)

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 05:10 PM
Had some free time, so I whipped up a homebrew fighter. Uses the Pathfinder Fighter as a base, with a modified version of the Trailblazer Fighter's Punishing Strike. Also includes some relevant, scaling skill bonuses, better saves, a reroll mechanic, something nice at level ten, and something that makes a standard attack at least a little more worthwhile.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfd7zxz_74fdxxvmf8

There are some decent ideas in there, but on the whole, it's not much better than the ordinary Pathfinder Fighter. Which is to say, people can still run around you and ignore you, and you don't have any good ways to deal with spellcasters. the Punishing strikes help a bit, but they aren't enough on their own.

On the other hand, we seem to be doing a lot of conceptual work on extending the usefulness of feats. Variations of some of the things we've been talking about could make use of the class features you like, and make them much more useful, or even add abilities to make up for whatever is still missing.

Apalala
2010-04-25, 05:13 PM
There are some decent ideas in there, but on the whole, it's not much better than the ordinary Pathfinder Fighter. Which is to say, people can still run around you and ignore you, and you don't have any good ways to deal with spellcasters. the Punishing strikes help a bit, but they aren't enough on their own.

On the other hand, we seem to be doing a lot of conceptual work on extending the usefulness of feats. Variations of some of the things we've been talking about could make use of the class features you like, and make them much more useful, or even add abilities to make up for whatever is still missing.

Mm. People can still run around and ignore you, and you can't deal with spellcasters...unless you use the many, many feats the fighter has open to him. The goal was to create a competent class at the level of the Pathfinder Paladin that would still have the versatility offered by its many bonus feats.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-04-25, 07:34 PM
Give Fighters an ability to get free attacks against anyone who passes through more than one of their threatened squares? Give them a way to make a contested check vs the opponent Tumble check to get a shot on them anyways?

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 09:28 PM
Mm. People can still run around and ignore you, and you can't deal with spellcasters...unless you use the many, many feats the fighter has open to him. The goal was to create a competent class at the level of the Pathfinder Paladin that would still have the versatility offered by its many bonus feats.

Right, right. I was just saying that you'll need your feats to do some things that a Fighter should be able to do (drawing fire, blocking progress, enduring enchantments (alright, good will saves should help that one a lot), controlling the battlefield, etc.). There are two main issues with that feats are the solution to the Fighter's problems:

1) I don't know of any feats in the standard, published literature that really, effectively do those jobs. Some come closer than others, but ultimately, they aren't that great. Admittedly, I haven't read any pathfinder material other than the Fighter, and there are plenty of books that I'm not familiar with. If you can think of good feats that fill the gap In the Fighter's abilities, this Thread would benefit from seeing them (please list the books they come from, though)

2) Anyone can take feats. So, any feat available to a Fighter is available to anyone else. This isn't always bad - I think the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger could use a little help, too. But it makes the Fighter class indistinct from the other classes.

Possible solutions:

1) Homebrewed feats. Making new feats is easy. Balancing them can be less so, but still not too bad.

2) Class abilities that give a greater range of options is the easiest solution to this one. That way, Fighters get them, and not the other classes. The "super feats" and feat trees that we have been discussing also address this problem. They're available to everyone, but only Fighters can get the full benefit from them.

I may have been a bit brusque, but you did ask for opinions, and these are the exact issues that I made this thread in order to discuss. Arguing about this stuff is pretty much the point here, so if you don't agree with my analysis, just tell me why your way is good, or what makes your idea stand out.

If you're open to suggestions, then what I would add to your class would be this:

Castigate (Ex) - At level 7, any time an enemy adjacent to you attacks one of your allies, they provoke an attack of opportunity from you. (This gives you a way to use your Punishing strikes more often, and should help convince enemies to leave your friends alone when you are nearby. Or you can walk up to an enemy caster and give 'em the old "Dirty Harry")

Improved Bravery (Ex) - You may make a second save against any enchantment or mind-affecting effect. (This one isn't entirely necessary, but Rogues can do this to any enchantment, and you've already set a limit on uses/day)

And maybe lose the "minus 5" on Focused Strike. Five extra points of damage on your only attack for the round isn't going to break anything.

Now your feats can customize your fighters fighting style, and emphasize your preferred style of play, instead of being necessary to achieve an important role in combat. Maybe throw in an ability to get AoOs from 5-foot steps and/or block tumbling, maybe even equip a spiked chain, and no one will ever be able to pull off a full attack on someone you're protecting. And then you can still make an ubercharger if you want, but at least you'll be able to be a guard/meatshield/controller if you want to.

Ashtagon
2010-04-25, 09:55 PM
I honestly don't feel feats are the solution. A fighter's core role should be to stop the enemy from simply walking past him. Implementing that with feats would make the ability to do his job properly an optional element of the class, not a core element. And there are now so many feats that it's unreasonable to expect a player to know the "correct" choice of feats to make the class effective.

It's why I went with a menu of class abilities instead of feats.

itastelikelove
2010-04-25, 11:20 PM
I honestly don't feel feats are the solution.

I agree, and I would focus on class abilities while making a fix. But we've had some good thoughts about feats recently, and I think they're worth exploring for a bit. The "super feats" are a lot like choosing class abilities, since they only level up with Fighter levels. Long chains or trees of feats can give you decent options that no one else can get without blowing all of their feats, or without waiting for much higher levels. Which means that fighters get a better variety of abilities and sooner then other melee classes.

I don't think either one should be a complete fix on its own - the fighter should still have something to make it feel special, or augment its feats - but they could go a long way towards a good fix.

So, I wouldn't mind seeing someone base their version of the Fighter on new feats, if they can do it convincingly and keep others from taking over the fighter's role with too much ease.

DracoDei
2010-04-25, 11:23 PM
A fighter's core role should be to stop the enemy from simply walking past him.
Says you... some people like playing archers or melee damage dealers or whatever, and leave other party members defense to those party members.

Zeful
2010-04-26, 02:02 AM
Says you... some people like playing archers or melee damage dealers or whatever, and leave other party members defense to those party members.

And this is the single greatest problem with the fighter class. No one can agree on what it's supposed to do that no development ever actually goes anywhere. The class doesn't have the inherent design support to be as modular as it claims so you have to remove some of what it can do so that what remains will be effective.

To be blunt- if you're not able to make concessions of the class' design, then you're not going to actually get anywhere and you might as well give up.

Ashtagon
2010-04-26, 02:11 AM
In 4e terms, the fighter from 1e through to 3e is a martial striker in practice for almost every build I have seen used (ymmv). It varies between melee and ranged, with nearly every player spending the majority of its options on melee, with bows as a distant secondary weapon more often than not. Most players who want a bow user usually take levels in ranger or scout, with a two-level dip in fighter for the bonus feats.

On the other hand, the fighter is fluffed as a martial defender/striker/leader, variously in the fluff descriptions and in the array of NPCs portrayed as fighters.

Simply in terms of focus, some of that fluff range has to go. Since we already have melee strikers (rogues) who do that job so much better than fighters, that role can be dropped, and the NPC fluff suggests that ranged weaponry isn't really the core concept of fighters either. This leaves either leader or defender roles as the primary focus, with the other being the fighter's secondary role.

That's my reasoning for may the fighter a defender with a secondary role as leader.

Eldan
2010-04-26, 02:29 AM
I would go further and say that the leader role is already covered by the Marshall and the Warblade as well, so the Fighter really should just focus on defending. Of course, the knight has that role as well, but there are more than enough cases where there are two classes for one role (how many arcanists are there?)

Apalala
2010-04-26, 03:14 AM
Right, right. I was just saying that you'll need your feats to do some things that a Fighter should be able to do (drawing fire, blocking progress, enduring enchantments (alright, good will saves should help that one a lot), controlling the battlefield, etc.). There are two main issues with that feats are the solution to the Fighter's problems:

1) I don't know of any feats in the standard, published literature that really, effectively do those jobs. Some come closer than others, but ultimately, they aren't that great. Admittedly, I haven't read any pathfinder material other than the Fighter, and there are plenty of books that I'm not familiar with. If you can think of good feats that fill the gap In the Fighter's abilities, this Thread would benefit from seeing them (please list the books they come from, though)

2) Anyone can take feats. So, any feat available to a Fighter is available to anyone else. This isn't always bad - I think the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger could use a little help, too. But it makes the Fighter class indistinct from the other classes.

Possible solutions:

1) Homebrewed feats. Making new feats is easy. Balancing them can be less so, but still not too bad.

2) Class abilities that give a greater range of options is the easiest solution to this one. That way, Fighters get them, and not the other classes. The "super feats" and feat trees that we have been discussing also address this problem. They're available to everyone, but only Fighters can get the full benefit from them.

I may have been a bit brusque, but you did ask for opinions, and these are the exact issues that I made this thread in order to discuss. Arguing about this stuff is pretty much the point here, so if you don't agree with my analysis, just tell me why your way is good, or what makes your idea stand out.

If you're open to suggestions, then what I would add to your class would be this:

Castigate (Ex) - At level 7, any time an enemy adjacent to you attacks one of your allies, they provoke an attack of opportunity from you. (This gives you a way to use your Punishing strikes more often, and should help convince enemies to leave your friends alone when you are nearby. Or you can walk up to an enemy caster and give 'em the old "Dirty Harry")

Improved Bravery (Ex) - You may make a second save against any enchantment or mind-affecting effect. (This one isn't entirely necessary, but Rogues can do this to any enchantment, and you've already set a limit on uses/day)

And maybe lose the "minus 5" on Focused Strike. Five extra points of damage on your only attack for the round isn't going to break anything.

Now your feats can customize your fighters fighting style, and emphasize your preferred style of play, instead of being necessary to achieve an important role in combat. Maybe throw in an ability to get AoOs from 5-foot steps and/or block tumbling, maybe even equip a spiked chain, and no one will ever be able to pull off a full attack on someone you're protecting. And then you can still make an ubercharger if you want, but at least you'll be able to be a guard/meatshield/controller if you want to.



Well, Pathfinder has the Disruptive Strike and Spellbreaker feats, which increase the DC for casting defensively and make failure to cast a spell provoke. Note that PF also increased the DC for casting defensively already.

But then, there's Mage Slayer from Complete Arcane. +1 to will saves and casters you threaten can't cast defensively, though your caster level goes down by 4 for all spells and spell-like abilities. That unlocks access to Pierce Magical Concealment and Pierce Magical Protection.

There's Backstab from Dragon 340, where any enemy who attacks a target other than you while flanked provokes an attack from you.

Defensive Sweep from PHB2 makes any enemy adjacent to you for a turn automatically provoke an AoO, but it has the hefty 15 BAB requirement.

Not too many anti-caster feats, but the Crystal Keep has a slew of AoO based feats.

Ashtagon
2010-04-26, 03:16 AM
If we look purely at martial (with a reasonably loose definition of the word) classes, 3e has the following:

* barbarian - melee striker (avoids damage by having shedloads of hp and DR)
* ranger - ranged striker (avoids damage by being out of melee range)
* rogue - melee striker (avoids damage by having good Dex)
* fighter - neither fluff nor crunch makes fighter a controller as primary role. Others left open to debate.

Arguably, barbarian has a minor in defender, but the other two are definitely strikers through and through. With so many striker classes already there, it's probably best not to make the fighter into yet another striker class.

The following are splatbook classes. Some of these fill missing gaps, but some, especially the later ones, were basically fighter fixes.

* knight (PHB2) - melee defender with a minor in leader.
* ninja (CAd) - striker (avoids damage with ki tricks)
* scout (CAd) - ranged striker (avoids damage by constantly moving)
* samurai (CW) - twf melee striker with a minor in controller (staredown, kiai shouts)
* swashbuckler (CW) - 1h/s+b melee striker (a fairly weak class)
* marshal (MH) - leader (aura, grant move action)

In older (2e or non-splatbook 3e) materials, knight, samurai, and marshal would have been stated as fighters (or possibly cavaliers post-Unearthed Arcana). Ninja would be thieves (or ninja if using 1e Oriental Adventures); scouts in older material would have been rangers, and swashbucklers would have been fighter/thieves.

In other words, a fixed fighter should be able to cover the roles of "fighter" (whatever that is), knight, samurai, and marshal. The other splatbook classes have their roots in different core classes, and would dilute the focus of the fighter excessively.

Once we examine the roles covered, we have...

* melee defender
* melee striker
* leader
* whatever a core "fighter" is

So, how about a class design that, were it single classed to level 20, would amount to "choose two packages, one major and one minor, from striker, defender, and leader options"? I'd personally tighten that further, and say major in defender, with a minor in either striker or in leader.

Eldan
2010-04-26, 04:03 AM
On the feat thing again:

Here's where I disagree with some people, I guess, but hear me out:
Yes, the fighter needs class features. However, static class features alone will make him an inflexible, not very interesting class. If you give him a set of class features he will always have, you get the effect that most fighters will look more or less the same, if we discount prestige classes. I think, however, that every class should have not only a set of set features defining it's role but also, during it's 20-level course, a few points where the player can make a choice between different paths.
Most of the classes available in 3.X don't do that much. Let's look at core:

Barbarian: no choice of class features whatsoever.
Bard: can choose spells, and I guess distribute his skills somewhat.
Cleric: domain and god choices. Good enough.
Druid: animal companions, wild shape is an incredibly flexible class feature in itself.
Monk: a few bonus feats early on. Not overwhelming.
Paladin: nothing to choose, really.
Ranger: favoured enemies, style paths.
Rogue: from level 10 on, has a short list of specials.
Sorcerer and Wizard: choose their spells.

What I mean is that the fighter should not only have a list of class features, but also a set of choices the player can make during construction. And without a major mechanical rewrite a la Tome of Battle, the easiest way to do this is giving the fighter bonus feats and making new feats which actually have useful effects on higher levels.

Ashtagon
2010-04-26, 04:19 AM
On the feat thing again:

Here's where I disagree with some people, I guess, but hear me out:
Yes, the fighter needs class features. However, static class features alone will make him an inflexible, not very interesting class. If you give him a set of class features he will always have, you get the effect that most fighters will look more or less the same, if we discount prestige classes. I think, however, that every class should have not only a set of set features defining it's role but also, during it's 20-level course, a few points where the player can make a choice between different paths.
Most of the classes available in 3.X don't do that much. Let's look at core:

Barbarian: no choice of class features whatsoever.
Bard: can choose spells, and I guess distribute his skills somewhat.
Cleric: domain and god choices. Good enough.
Druid: animal companions, wild shape is an incredibly flexible class feature in itself.
Monk: a few bonus feats early on. Not overwhelming.
Paladin: nothing to choose, really.
Ranger: favoured enemies, style paths.
Rogue: from level 10 on, has a short list of specials.
Sorcerer and Wizard: choose their spells.

What I mean is that the fighter should not only have a list of class features, but also a set of choices the player can make during construction. And without a major mechanical rewrite a la Tome of Battle, the easiest way to do this is giving the fighter bonus feats and making new feats which actually have useful effects on higher levels.

Good points. A strongly believe all classes should get meaningful choices at both character design level and at the combat level. I kind of touched on the flexible class feature issue with my fighter fix here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150080); you choose soldier talents which give broad static bonuses, and martial prowess abilities which give short term tactical boosts. I guess the main flaw is that I hadn't thought about it's focus properly when writing it up.

Two key issues for every class: role, and interesting decisions at both major levels.

DracoDei
2010-04-26, 06:58 AM
No one can agree on what it's supposed to do that no development ever actually goes anywhere. The class doesn't have the inherent design support to be as modular as it claims so you have to remove some of what it can do so that what remains will be effective.
Feats are made to be modular... the fact that there are only a few really good builds is something that COULD in theory be fixed at the feat level. The idea of "paths" for certain class features also works. The two probably work best in combination. It is possible to fix this, if only by explicitly including plug in slots...

Which is to say if something is included in a sidebar about: "New players are strongly strongly encouraged to take feat X by level Y because Z means that you aren't going to be really tactically viable if you don't." then that is just ducky with me and also that if we have "lists" of class features to pick from at a given level that just HAPPEN to start out one item long then that also shows the sort of design principles I like to see (my father is a programmer... can you tell?).

AceofDeath
2010-04-26, 08:07 AM
I like the idea someone proposed early on about giving the fighter some kind of Feat perfection, I already tried to work this into a fighter fix. Al though there's a lot of feats out there and I'm not sure if I'm over powering the fighter.

But the way I thought about mostly was so that they would increase in power over levels. For example dodge would become something like 1+1/4 the fighters level (maybe BAB dunno, depends whatever you would like other classes to get a good bonus if they multiclass?(and I don't know if 1/4 level/BAb still is to weak)), Also Improved Initiative could become 4 + 1/2 fighter level (BAB if you like?) this would mean that the fighter in these cases would have a lot of abilities which is scaling together with his level just like an arcana caster got spells that does (Okay hardly any 1st level spells would be used by a 17th level wizard but you get the point, right?).

My problem is what about feats where there is no actually bonus but the bonus is mechanical? Those needs a bit more thinking then the easier one above. I don't just want the improvement to be the feat perfection since that would be the same as just getting the fighter two bonus feats instead of one (Maybe it could fix him, but I still prefer something a bit more exotic, if you have any idea about what I'm saying...)

And yes I would still give him something he could use out side of battle. My idea is like an ability I call Heroic stunt granting the fighter with a bonus to any skills (If you like maybe just physical skills) a number of times per day equal to his fighter level.
Okay maybe I didn't come up with that, but I can't remember who gave me the idea if it wasn't my own....

Eldan
2010-04-26, 11:25 AM
I guess a good start would be giving the fighter more skill points, somewhere around 6 or so.

AceofDeath
2010-04-26, 11:55 AM
I guess a good start would be giving the fighter more skill points, somewhere around 6 or so.

Maybe one additional good Base save?

Apalala
2010-04-26, 12:19 PM
Maybe one additional good Base save?

Mm. My idea was to give the fighter a choice of a good reflex or will save.

Perhaps at higher levels it should get Evasion or Slippery Mind, depending on which choice was taken.

AceofDeath
2010-04-26, 12:22 PM
Mm. My idea was to give the fighter a choice of a good reflex or will save.

Perhaps at higher levels it should get Evasion or Slippery Mind, depending on which choice was taken.

never heard about a class who can decide for it self which base save it wants to have as good. But sounds interesting, and I'm pretty much interested in every thing that can make our all beloved fighter function better in-game :smallwink:

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-26, 01:01 PM
never heard about a class who can decide for it self which base save it wants to have as good. But sounds interesting, and I'm pretty much interested in every thing that can make our all beloved fighter function better in-game :smallwink:

My idea was to give him a bonus to reflex or will saves, but every time they succeed on a save of that kind the bonus is reduced. The flavor is that he can have bursts of speed (reflex) or mental toughness (will), but it eventually wears hi out. The bonus would be restaured with rest.

Zeful
2010-04-26, 01:46 PM
Feats are made to be modular... the fact that there are only a few really good builds is something that COULD in theory be fixed at the feat level. The idea of "paths" for certain class features also works. The two probably work best in combination. It is possible to fix this, if only by explicitly including plug in slots... Feats are also general. Before, to lock out feats you made them require specific class levels. But since the Warblade may treat his levels in the Warblade class as if they were fighter levels, that restriction is no longer effective. Therefore the redesign of feats to give the Fighter an edge is no longer a viable method of fixing the class (not that it ever really was to begin with in my opinion) since at least one other class may use feats exclusive to the fighter.

lightningcat
2010-04-26, 02:05 PM
My current fighter fix has the following modifications:
1) Use Weapon Groups (This make more sense anyways), allow fighters to instead take Exotic Weapon Proficiency instead.
2) Bravery: Bonus to Will saves against fear effects. +2 at 2nd, +1 per 4 levels thereafter
3) The fix provided in the dead level (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) document. With the additional options:
Armor Training (Ex): Whenever the fighter is wearing armor, he gains an additional +1 armor bonus to his armor class, reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0), or increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1 (each chosen separately, the same choice may be made multiple times).
Tactical Insight (Ex): A fighter can read combat situations better, giving the character a +1 bonus on Wisdom checks, Spot checks and Sense Motive checks.
Inspired Leadership (Ex): A fighter gains a +1 bonus when making morale checks and rally checks, (see Heroes of Battle). The fighter also gains a +1 to his Leadership score.
4) Combat Mastery: all static bonuses granted by Fighter feats are increased by 50% at 9th level, and double at 17th level. Adjustable bonuses (such as Combat Expertise or Power Attack) are not effected. (This means that these feats will always do more for the fighter then they will for other classes, including warblade.)
5) Weapon Mastery: @ 20th level, single chosen weapon type deals +1 crit multiplier, automatically confirms, and cannot be disarmed.

Use and change as nessecary for what you want to make the fighter. But these changes cover many of the arguements people have had with the fighter.

AceofDeath
2010-04-26, 02:08 PM
Feats are also general. Before, to lock out feats you made them require specific class levels. But since the Warblade may treat his levels in the Warblade class as if they were fighter levels, that restriction is no longer effective. Therefore the redesign of feats to give the Fighter an edge is no longer a viable method of fixing the class (not that it ever really was to begin with in my opinion) since at least one other class may use feats exclusive to the fighter.

How about calling it an ability, which only scale through the fighter level? I have to say I'm also a bit annoyed with the Warblades power ranking, but then again if you do as I explained, given the fighter a possibility to have the same feats as others but far better. And you have to take a couple of fighter levels to get just one of them....

Eldan
2010-04-26, 02:11 PM
Use and change as nessecary for what you want to make the fighter. But these changes cover many of the arguements people have had with the fighter.

Actually, they cover pretty much none of it. The issue with the fighter, currently, is not that he needs higher numbers for to hit or to damage. He needs something which allows him to compete in an environment where wizards throw forcecages around while flying invisibly, and, perhaps even more important, a few more options.

AceofDeath
2010-04-26, 02:22 PM
Actually, they cover pretty much none of it. The issue with the fighter, currently, is not that he needs higher numbers for to hit or to damage. He needs something which allows him to compete in an environment where wizards throw forcecages around while flying invisibly, and, perhaps even more important, a few more options.


Also true, but the main fluff about the fighter should stay intact. I like the feat Idea and might be the reason that I'm talking so strongly for feats. Feats makes you create alot of different styles for a player to use, I know these are also things that makes him so weak, since feats probably ain't the most powerful abilities but just some extra to give a character something extra in extension to his class.

DracoDei
2010-04-26, 02:23 PM
Feats are also general. Before, to lock out feats you made them require specific class levels. But since the Warblade may treat his levels in the Warblade class as if they were fighter levels, that restriction is no longer effective. Therefore the redesign of feats to give the Fighter an edge is no longer a viable method of fixing the class (not that it ever really was to begin with in my opinion) since at least one other class may use feats exclusive to the fighter.

The Warblade invalidates nothing necessarily, since it gets only half the total feats the fighter does and counts as a LOWER LEVEL fighter for qualifying for those feats. Besides which, if the Warblade is an option that both the GM and the Player are happy with, then the whole issue this thread raises is much less important I should think.

Ashtagon
2010-04-26, 02:23 PM
One issue I noticed with feats is that, for most classes, feats have no "chain". That is, most feats have either no feats or a single feat as a prerequisite, and those that do have a feat as a prereq do not in turn have a feat prereq for that feat. There is no "depth" for non-fighter feats. Fighters, in comparison, have to buy up their feats by spending four of them to reach the top level of their feat chains in most cases. So although they get more feats, those feats aren't worth as much because they have to spend more to get the equivalent total benefit.

DracoDei
2010-04-26, 02:26 PM
One issue I noticed with feats is that, for most classes, feats have no "chain". That is, most feats have either no feats or a single feat as a prerequisite, and those that do have a feat as a prereq do not in turn have a feat prereq for that feat. There is no "depth" for non-fighter feats. Fighters, in comparison, have to buy up their feats by spending four of them to reach the top level of their feat chains in most cases. So although they get more feats, those feats aren't worth as much because they have to spend more to get the equivalent total benefit.

Actually that is a GOOD thing, since the later feats in the chain don't render the earlier ones meaningless (or are straight improvements over them such as a +2 bonus changing to a +4 bonus or such), and the depth means that non-fighters have a harder time getting them, requiring more levels or whatever.

Eldan
2010-04-26, 02:28 PM
That should, of course, theoretically be balanced by feats higher up in the chain being stronger than those further down.

Which is laughable as soon as you run into things like Whirlwind attack, the longest chain in core.

DracoDei
2010-04-26, 02:38 PM
That should, of course, theoretically be balanced by feats higher up in the chain being stronger than those further down.

Which is laughable as soon as you run into things like Whirlwind attack, the longest chain in core.
Right... so someone needs to power-up that feat (and a bunch of others).

Eldan
2010-04-26, 02:46 PM
Whirlwind attack? Not sure what to do with it, honestly.

It needs Spring attack, so maybe make it "make a double move and attack every enemy you run by"?

Eldan
2010-04-26, 02:53 PM
Oh, I'm working on some more Two-weapon fighting feats at the moment, by the way. How do these look?


Two-weapon Feint

Requirements: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, Two-weapon fighting, Int 13+, Dex 15+

Benefit: As a swift action, you can give up one or more attacks with your off-hand to make the same number of feints with your main hand.

((Needs better wording, but I hope you get my meaning)

Main Gauche

Requirements: Combat Expertise, Two-weapon fighting, Two-weapon defence, Int 13+, Dex 15+

Benefit: When fighting defensively, the -4 attack penalty applies only to your off-hand. Furthermore, you may choose to use combat expertise with your off-hand only, gaining a +1 dodge bonus to AC for every -2 penalty you take that way, to a maximum of -10.

Mongoose87
2010-04-26, 02:55 PM
Whirlwind attack? Not sure what to do with it, honestly.

It needs Spring attack, so maybe make it "make a double move and attack every enemy you run by"?

Isn't that already a class feature?

Eldan
2010-04-26, 03:02 PM
Not one I ever heard of. Class feature of which class?

DracoDei
2010-04-26, 03:04 PM
I think Desert Wind has a maneuver for that... which brings up the point that the "ToB Unflavoring Project" (which seeks to turn maneuvers into feats) may be "relevant to our interests".

AceofDeath
2010-04-26, 03:05 PM
How does this sounds for a fighter class ability?

Heroic Stunt: Sometimes a hero just happens to beat the odds and takes a move, leap or does something completely stupid and risky and still he get away with it alive, at 6th level (Perhaps) the fighter may add his fighter levels to a skill check, he may do this a number of times per day equal to the amount of attack his base attack lets him have in a full round (not included any additional attack as with Two-weapon fighting).

Is it understandable? any good? Or not really in the fighter feel?

Eldan
2010-04-26, 03:13 PM
Well, to be honest, I don't see why the fighter should be especially heroic. Apart from that, it sounds a little like Action Points.

Ashtagon
2010-04-26, 03:24 PM
The problem with saying fighters get deep trees to make sure other classes can't get their toys is that it ends up with fighters having to specialise to get the real toys. Consider that a fighter gets 18 feats over his 20-level career. That's enough to get the top tier item on four feat trees. He has four things he can do well at this point. A wizard has more daily 9th level spells at that level.

I'd rather fighters get class features instead of feats for just this reason - so they can be broad enough without giving away their toys to other classes. Doing this also means fighter feats can be properly balanced against non-fighter feats so they all have the same value.

Eldan
2010-04-26, 03:35 PM
Well, my suggestion was that the fighter gets both:

Class features as static things, and more feats for easier customisation. BEcause, basically, a fighter is supposed to fight well, and most feats are combat tricks the fighter should get to know in his career.

nonsi
2010-04-26, 06:20 PM
I agree, and I would focus on class abilities while making a fix. But we've had some good thoughts about feats recently, and I think they're worth exploring for a bit.

The problem with leaving things in the realm of feats is that you don’t solve the problem of the class being too easy to totally mess up. A martial class needs to have a strong foundation that 1) no player (no matter how inexperienced) can totally mess up and 2) grants a decent set of in-game options.
And even if you made the right feat selections for your concept, a feat usually does only one thing and the vast majority just revolves around some kind of stat pumping. Definitely not enough in the big guys’ sandbox.
And I’ll say it again. You’ll never truly salvage this class concept without tinkering with the combat rules.




No one can agree on what it's supposed to do that no development ever actually goes anywhere.



I would go further and say that the leader role is already covered by the Marshall and the Warblade as well, so the Fighter really should just focus on defending.



Yes, the fighter needs class features. However, static class features alone will make him an inflexible, not very interesting class. If you give him a set of class features he will always have, you get the effect that most fighters will look more or less the same, if we discount prestige classes.

I strongly disagree.

Let’s review some famous folklore warriors

- Swashbucklers: Robin Hood, Zorro, Scarlet Pimpernel, Dartanian
- Gladiators: Conan, Maximus, Spartacus
- Leaders of Armies: Achilles (movie version), King Leonidas, William Wallace
- Barbarians: Hercules, Erik, Beowulf, Siegfried, Brunhilde, Red Sonja
- Heavily Armored: King Arthur, Lancelot, Galahad
- Multi-Purpose Woodmen: Aragorn, Legolas

All the above are classic warriors
None has powers that bend or break the laws of their realities

Now, to make a truly worthwhile Fighter remake, one has to take into consideration that some campaigns categorically prohibit everything that has to do with ToB, but that the benefits provided by the Warblade’s rigid features are a must for a combat-dominant base class – but they can’t be tied to Int, otherwise you’re forcing all capable warriors to be geniuses (which we all know to have no grip on reality).




What I mean is that the fighter should not only have a list of class features, but also a set of choices the player can make during construction. And without a major mechanical rewrite a la Tome of Battle, the easiest way to do this is giving the fighter bonus feats and making new feats which actually have useful effects on higher levels.

This is exactly where I was aiming at with my proposed version: a sizeable amount of fixed features and then path selection. Together with some mechanical tinkering, 4 feats more than the core Fighter gets, more skill points and a wider skill selection you end up with a very wide in-build set of options and practically an endless in-game array of choices.




Combat Mastery: all static bonuses granted by Fighter feats are increased by 50% at 9th level, and double at 17th level. Adjustable bonuses (such as Combat Expertise or Power Attack) are not effected.

And what if player X, for whatever reason, never took feats that augment stats?
The problem with augmenting the general behavior of feats is that you’re never done, because there are always exceptions and special cases,




Use and change as nessecary for what you want to make the fighter. But these changes cover many of the arguements people have had with the fighter.”

No disrespect intended, but not even close.




Feats makes you create alot of different styles for a player to use, I know these are also things that makes him so weak, since feats probably ain't the most powerful abilities but just some extra to give a character something extra in extension to his class.

Not only that. Even with 3 solid trees (say midway in the level progression ladder), you still generally end up with choices that exclusively revolve around those 3. Change the scenery just a bit and poor ole’ Fighter is stuck once again with nothing interesting to do while the others keep having fun.




One issue I noticed with feats is that, for most classes, feats have no "chain". That is, most feats have either no feats or a single feat as a prerequisite, and those that do have a feat as a prereq do not in turn have a feat prereq for that feat. There is no "depth" for non-fighter feats. Fighters, in comparison, have to buy up their feats by spending four of them to reach the top level of their feat chains in most cases. So although they get more feats, those feats aren't worth as much because they have to spend more to get the equivalent total benefit.

Which makes it a valid suggestion (among other things), to trim most of said trees down to size dramatically and make some of them feat-free BAB-related game options (as my rules do regarding Spring Attack with the “Multiple Attacks and Movement” rules) or plain simple free for your would-be Fighter fix (as my rules do regarding my Warrior and the Weapon Spec tree). All the above – and the other stuff mentioned in my previous post – make sure no other class can come anywhere near my Warrior in terms of combat prowess.




The problem with saying fighters get deep trees to make sure other classes can't get their toys is that it ends up with fighters having to specialise to get the real toys. Consider that a fighter gets 18 feats over his 20-level career. That's enough to get the top tier item on four feat trees. He has four things he can do well at this point. A wizard has more daily 9th level spells at that level.

BINGO (!)
Now take a look at my fix and see how I rise to this challenge.

DracoDei
2010-04-26, 06:38 PM
A martial class needs to have a strong foundation that 1) no player (no matter how inexperienced) can totally mess up
I prefer classes whose survivability and effectiveness is directly proportional to the skill of the player. Some simpler classes are fine (although not my preference), but I don't think every class has to meet this criterion. If nothing else, a more experienced player can be advising the newbie during character creation and level-ups, and perhaps even some OOC tactical kibitzing should be allowed at the table that would not be allowed if all the players are more experienced and competitive.

Zeful
2010-04-26, 09:07 PM
I prefer classes whose survivability and effectiveness is directly proportional to the skill of the player.

Which punishes new and casual players.

System mastery is fine when it rewards it's use, but punishing it's lack of use only drives away players. People have a hard enough time as it is. Every class should be able to weather players inexperienced to the system for the first 5 levels. The only time a player should die, or be ineffective in those 5 levels is due to bad tactical choices on the player's part.


You’ll never truly salvage this class concept without tinkering with the combat rules.Tinkering? Not enough, even if you moved things around so grapple was "easier" (It's a grapple check every time you want to do something, it's not that hard people) or combat maneuver X was better, the game still has too simplistic mechanics to do anything other than place Two-handed weapons at the top of the combat tree (especially given the sheer power of magic turning D&D into a glorified game of rocket tag) even if they are only slightly below TWF in power.


I strongly disagree.

Let’s review some famous folklore warriors

- Swashbucklers: Robin Hood, Zorro, Scarlet Pimpernel, Dartanian
- Gladiators: Conan, Maximus
- Leaders of Armies: Achilles (movie version), King Leonidas, William Wallace
- Barbarians: Hercules, Erik, Beowulf
- Heavily Armored: King Arthur, Lancelot, Galahad
- Multi-Purpose Woodmen: Aragorn, Legolas

All the above are classic warriors
None has powers that bend or break the laws of their realities.
Achilles was immortal and could only be defeated by a strike to an area several square inches across. Hercules was a demi-god. They kinda did. Further under the current system, few of them are very high level. Hercules is the highest level, because his many accomplishments can be tracked and replicated under the current system. But is he a fighter? Not really, most of his accomplishments were due to his godly strength rather than any notable fighting skill, so in D&D it really wouldn't matter the class he was.


Now, to make a truly worthwhile Fighter remake, one has to take into consideration that some campaigns categorically prohibit everything that has to do with ToB, but that the benefits provided by the Warblade’s rigid features are a must for a combat-dominant base class – but they can’t be tied to Int, otherwise you’re forcing all capable warriors to be geniuses (which we all know to have no grip on reality).But a class with highly variable class features is tedious, both on the side of the designer and on the player. Too much to think about what ability you're making/picking up. Further players that take you up on that variability are weakening themselves because the variability can't scale the same way as rigid features, doubly so when the features synergize well together.

The best way to keep the variability is to have abilities that apply to everything: However this focuses the concept into more a Weapon Master rather than a Gladiator or Beserker (which is covered well enough by the Barbarian).

I'll say it again, to make the Fighter a more effective class, you have to increase the focus on one aspect of the class over others. The point is what to focus on.

Eldan
2010-04-27, 03:38 AM
I'd actually argue that Legolas is a low-level ranger, and a pretty iconic one at that, with Robin Hood being more of a Scout/Fighter than a pure fighter, given that he seemed to have considerable wilderness skills. Even more so going by his movie depictions where he tends to have ridiculous dexterity.


Now, the discussion is going in an interesting direction: what should the fighter be able to do? Making him a kind of piece of rock in full plate means two things: first, not doing much damage but being able to take a lot isn't very exciting for the player and two, the fighter will be ignored while the damage dealers and the buffed wizards do their combat. To strain the metaphor a little more: in a game of rocket tag, the guy who is able to take three rockets to the face but comes with a water pistol is not a very interesting opponent.

Realms of Chaos
2010-04-27, 04:36 AM
Wait a moment, nevermind.

Eldan
2010-04-27, 08:01 AM
I've started a branch thread for new and rewritten feats here, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150568) I hope some people will come and contribute.

Gnifle
2010-04-27, 08:08 AM
BINGO (!)
Now take a look at my fix and see how I rise to this challenge.

I would like to take a look at that fix, but where is it Nonsi?

I must say that I findt this thread very usefull, I've currently started playing a fighter and I have couple of suggestions for my DM :smallwink:

The Fighter I'm playing is a homebrewed light armoured Variant, with a D12 HD (which should be standard for every fighter), 4 skill points (which should also be standard) and a ranger skill selection. The restriction is that I may only wear light armour and can't use shields, but this suits me fine with me being a Elven warrior with Dex 22 , a Mithril Chainshirt and a magic Courtblade (Weapon finesse).

I personally like feats that scale with level, and where synergy plays a role.
A few examples (two to be presice)
Iron Will becomes a viable option if it confers a +4 bonus at level 10.
Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization becomes wothwhile if they, when you reach the apporpriate fighter level, grants the bonus as if you had also chosen Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. Two rather useless feats becomes a must.

Eldan
2010-04-27, 08:14 AM
Go check over in the thread I'm linking... it's part what I'm doing there.

Currently, I'm working on Two-weapon fighting, but I intend to do weapon mastery (everything starting at weapon focus), Combat Focus (PHBII, here it's mostly adding more), Shields (starting at Shield Bash, the Sword&Board style really needs more love) and whatever else I can come up with.

Another question: which skills should a fighter have on his list in addition to those he already gets? I'm thinking Spot and Listen, to make an effective guardsman, and bluff and Sense Motive, for effective feinting. This under the premise that the fighter gets more skill points.

Ashtagon
2010-04-27, 08:24 AM
I personally like feats that scale with level, and where synergy plays a role.
A few examples (two to be presice)
Iron Will becomes a viable option if it confers a +4 bonus at level 10.
Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization becomes wothwhile if they, when you reach the apporpriate fighter level, grants the bonus as if you had also chosen Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. Two rather useless feats becomes a must.

I'm working on a plan to make all feats scale, and also be equal in value. Since you highlight Iron Will, here's my version:

I'm trying to avoid simply giving a bigger static bonus as things scale, since that has two problems. First, it leads to "power level 9000 fatigue", where you either picked the right feat and autowin, or didn't pick the right feat and autolose. Second, By giving every feat both a small static bonus and a function that works only on command by specific player-decision, it makes the player value his feats more. There might not be room for an on-command feature on every feat, but where one can be made, I intend on making one.

Similarly, I intend on merging (Greater) Weapon Focus/Specialisation into a single feat from four.

Iron Will
* Benefit: This feat has three benefits. First, you gain a +2 bonus on Willpower saving throws. Second, when you spend an action point to improve a Willpower saving throw, you roll d10s instead of d6s. Third, once per day you may re-roll a Willpower saving throw, and take the best result. If you spent an action point on that saving throw, the bonus from the action points is not re-rolled.
* Scaling: At 6th level, and every five levels after that, you gain one additional re-roll per day.

Weapon Focus (weapon group)
* Benefit: Choose a weapon group. With all weapons in this weapon group, you gain a +1 on attack rolls.
* Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different weapon group.
* Scaling: You gain a bonus equal to half your base attack bonus (round down) on damage rolls. If your base attack bonus is +11 or better, you also double the threat range of the weapon.

It seemed more logical to tie the scaling to bab than to level for this feat. I decided to merge in Improved Critical to this feat rather than Greater WF. The numbers work out statistically about the same in either case.

Eldan
2010-04-27, 08:37 AM
Would you be interested on cooperating and posting them over in my thread? Especially your weapon focus is already close to what I had in mind, minus the prowess mechanic.

Edit:
Actually, I'd have done it differently: my take was to have weapon focus give you an attack bonus equal to 1+1/4 character levels, then a feat for +2 damage+2/4 character levels, so two feats, but both scaling.

nonsi
2010-04-27, 08:38 AM
Tinkering? Not enough, even if you moved things around so grapple...

Grapple was far from being the main issue.
Focus on what I marked "(critical)".




Achilles was immortal and could only be defeated by a strike to an area several square inches across. Hercules was a demi-god.

Wait a minute.

Let’s not forget that by RL standards, a 7th level character is by any measurement super human.
I remember there was an attempt on WotC to assess the power level of Achilles’ movie version. IIRC, the conclusion was that he didn’t need more than 10 Fighter levels (14 if you insist on Driving Attack, which most didn’t).

Now let’s examine Hercules (I’ll regard Hallmark’s mini-series’ version).
In terms of the missions he accomplished, according to the core roles, Hercules didn’t need to be more than Barb 2/Ranger 6/Fighter 4.

As far as his strength goes:
- Born with perfect Str: 18
- Being the son of a god: +2 modifier
- Tome/something of equal power: +5
- Permanently bestowed with a greater version of Bull’s Str: +6
- level 12: +3
- Rage: +4
I counted 37 so far. That’s crazy strong.
Even with base Str score 7 as a baby, you end up with 18 to begin with, which is more than enough to crush 2 snakelings.




But a class with highly variable class features is tedious, both on the side of the designer and on the player. Too much to think about what ability you're making/picking up. Further players that take you up on that variability are weakening themselves because the variability can't scale the same way as rigid features, doubly so when the features synergize well together.

You're getting ahead of yourself.
I could go on babbling for hours, but the best thing you can do to figure this is not the case is to follow my instructions in my first post.




The best way to keep the variability is to have abilities that apply to everything: However this focuses the concept into more a Weapon Master rather than a Gladiator or Beserker (which is covered well enough by the Barbarian).

Ditto.




I'll say it again, to make the Fighter a more effective class, you have to increase the focus on one aspect of the class over others. The point is what to focus on.

No. Ditto.

Mongoose87
2010-04-27, 09:55 AM
Weapon Focus (weapon group)
* Benefit: Choose a weapon group. With all weapons in this weapon group, you gain a +1 on attack rolls.
* Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different weapon group.
* Scaling: You gain a bonus equal to half your base attack bonus (round down) on damage rolls. If your base attack bonus is +11 or better, you also double the threat range of the weapon.

It seemed more logical to tie the scaling to bab than to level for this feat. I decided to merge in Improved Critical to this feat rather than Greater WF. The numbers work out statistically about the same in either case.

Here's a crazy idea for Weapon Focus: Have it scale, then make Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization add completely different abilities. For example, let Greater allow you to make an extra attack as a swift action. Let Greater Weapon Specialization allow you to penetrate X amount of DR, regardless of type. Something like that.

nonsi
2010-04-27, 12:25 PM
Ashtagon, you should note that some campaigns don't use action points (never been in one that did and never felt it was really needed).

Ashtagon
2010-04-27, 12:30 PM
Ashtagon, you should note that some campaigns don't use action points (never been in one that did and never felt it was really needed).

I am aware of that. I am designing these feats to function well whether or not action points are present in the campaign, rather than feeling tacked on as a makeshift kludge, as they appear in the default RAW.

Set
2010-04-27, 12:31 PM
Let’s review some famous folklore warriors
- Swashbucklers: Robin Hood, Zorro, Scarlet Pimpernel, Dartanian
- Gladiators: Conan, Maximus
- Leaders of Armies: Achilles (movie version), King Leonidas, William Wallace
- Barbarians: Hercules, Erik, Beowulf
- Heavily Armored: King Arthur, Lancelot, Galahad
- Multi-Purpose Woodmen: Aragorn, Legolas

All the above are classic warriors
None has powers that bend or break the laws of their realities
None particularly fits the role of striker/skirmisher

And there's where giving a Fighter too many 'class abilities' other than 'moar feets' could make the class less generally able to cover all of this territory. I do want class abilities, and not just 'more feats,' but, at the same time, I want modular / customizable options (like the option of ditching armor profs for dodge bonuses to AC I mentioned upthread).


Now, to make a truly worthwhile Fighter remake, one has to take into consideration that some campaigns categorically prohibit everything that has to do with ToB,

And, ideally, a Fighter fix shouldn't require us to consult rules (maneuvers and refreshment thereof) from a non-core source that is probably out of print.

DracoDei
2010-04-27, 12:44 PM
The entirety of WotC 3.X is out of print to my knowledge... doesn't mean it is hard to buy though...

Set
2010-04-27, 12:57 PM
I'm aiming at around 8 feats for every such tree currently, just about enough that a dedicated non-fighter could take most of one tree as well. Other trees I'm thinking about would be a weapon-mastery tree, an übercharger tree and perhaps trees for the various battle maneuvers (feint, shield bash, disarm, trip and so on).

If you don't have it already, check out Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might II: Bloody, Bold & Resolute (I is about casters, II about fighters).

He divides the fighter feats (and introduces a crud-load of new ones) into 'Domains' that each represent a fighting style, and have fifteen-ish feats each, ending with a capstone feat that is pretty ridiculous, but suits the 'style.'

For example, at the end of the 'Weapon and Shield' style is the feat 'Sword and Board Master,' which requires +16 BAB along with a bunch of feats, but gives the fighter a bonus pool of 'points' each round in which he's using a one-handed weapon and a shield. He gets 1 point / Fighter level, and they refresh at the beginning of the round, when he can re-allocate them. Each point can be used to give a bonus to his shield or his weapon, modifying attack rolls, damage rolls or the AC bonus of the shield, and he can't allocate more than half of them to either weapon or shield. So he could take 16 points, from sixteen Fighter levels, and give himself a +8 to AC, and allocate the other eight points into a +4 to hit and +4 to damage with his weapon, for instance.

He's got 15 'domains' listed; Agility, Ferocity, Fighting Dirty, Intellect, Leadership, Might, Mounted Combat, Quick Defense, Ranged Combat, Speed, Stalwart Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Unarmed Combat, Weapon Mastery and Weapon & Shield Fighting.

Also similar to what you've been saying, each feat has listed the effects for any old schmuck who takes it, and enhanced bonuses that only Fighters get when taking it with a Fighter Bonus Feat (such as Weapon Focus scaling, which might not be available to Paladins who take it), and he adds a further option for a Fighter to 'boost' a combat feat to get some special one time use, but only X times / day. (So he could use one of his 'boosts' to use Iron Will to get a reroll against a failed Will save, for example, although I just pulled that example out of my butt, and it might not A) work that way and B) even be one of the eligible feats for boosting...)

The rules in BoXM2 assume some of Monte's other rules changes (tons of feats for everyone!), and some of his rules might be wonky to integrate with other rules changes, as, for example, each Domain has one or two 'double feats' that require two feats to be spent to purchase them. Since you can't save up feats for next level, only a character who gains a bonus Fighter feat *and* a standard feat through level advancement at the same time would be eligible to purchase one (at, say, 1st, 6th, 12th and 18th, for a core Fighter). Using Pathfinder, where everyone gets a feat every odd level, and Fighters get them every even level, only at 1st level would a character be able to get a 'double feat' and I'm pretty sure that none of them are able to be taken by a 1st level character...

Lord_Gareth
2010-04-27, 01:02 PM
I don't know if the following has been contributed yet/already, but;

In D&D, the Line Between Magical and Mundane is Blurry: Put a rogue in a 10 x 10 room with no furniture, features, or cover. Drop a Meteor Swarm on him. If he makes his save, he completely avoids damage. Magical? Apparantly not - Evasion is an (Ex) ability. There are a lot of other examples, but that's the most common one. If anyone - Fighter or otherwise - is still obeying the law of physics past 8th level, something is deeply wrong.

History is Fun: Y'know that wussy-ass "punching dagger" in your PhB? Never heard of it? Look it up. I'll wait. Sucks, doesn't it? In real life, it was a stabbing weapon known as the Katar. It gets better - pull a lever on it, and the blade splits open to reveal a third one inside, re-stabbing your opponent and opening the wound a good eight inches wider. Sounds much nastier now, doesn't it? History is full of weapons, just waiting to be statted into something useful.

Complex Actions are Easily Interrupted: Try this at home sometime - make complex hand gestures and speak a precise series of words within about three seconds, without screwing up, while your friend(s) throw water balloons at you. Now imagine that, instead of balloons, those are rocks, knives, arrows, et cetera. Ranged spell interruption is a powerful tool. As far as "casting defensively" goes, I've never been able to imagine it as an in-action tool. A skill or feat to eliminate it (such as Mage Slayer) works out great.

Fear Me, Mortal: Battlecries, psychological warfare, costuming, intimidating weapon styles - all huge parts of the real-world battlefield. The bagpipes were used to crush morale; the ancient Finnish battlecry haaka palle ("Hack them down!") struck such fear into the hearts of Catholics that the Pope had a special prayer for them. Intimidation should be an easy, fluid part of combat.

High Armor Class is Deceptive: Touch attacks. Flat-footed strikes. Invisible opponents. Illusions. There's a lot of ways to lower that AC score. Fighters should roll with some kind of damage reduction, uncanny dodge, et cetera to help them offset the fact that, frankly, the biggest shield in the world won't help once the disintegrate starts flying.

Slash, Stab, Bite, Punch, Pommel Smash, Heel Stomp: A good punch to the face, heel kick, disarm, kidney shot or groin strike ends lives in a real fight. Make battle more fluid, and the Fighter's power increases exponentially. Potentially tied into the idea of "economy of action."

Pain Hurts: This one should be easy. Wizards are sissies. Fighters are hardened to pain, torture, et cetera. Pain penalties, perhaps mitigated by constitution? A thought.

Eldan
2010-04-27, 01:35 PM
Hmm. A lot of these will be difficult to integrate into D&D properly, to be honest. Going by the interpretation that hit points are stamina, luck and skill as much as anything else, a 10th level fighter can fight half a dozen commoners for hours before tiring even a little bit (i.e. they crit him).

Now, I've been thinking about a few of those things. I'm not sure I can do something about all of them, but better rules for the intimidation skill are something I've been working on, as well as feats to improve defences other than AC (shields to touch AC is one, better defences while flat-footed or against invisibles is in the planning stage.)

Someone (sorry, I'm bad with names) mentioned over in the other thread that perhaps weapons should be more flexible. Things like the pommel smash you mentioned could be a weapon modification, or just a standard thing you can do (-1 to all attacks for one round to get another attack with 1d4+1/2 strength bludgeoning damage with any weapon, perhaps?)
New special maneuvers like Trip and Disarm are now are easily incorporated, this could be one of them.

nonsi
2010-04-27, 02:25 PM
And there's where giving a Fighter too many 'class abilities' other than 'moar feets' could make the class less generally able to cover all of this territory.

Unless those features are general enough as to not constitute iconic actions.
Again, read my Warrior class.
- Elusive Attack, Counterattack and Overpowering Attack are basically an expression of a veteran warrior harnessing the benefits of cautious combat.
- Array of Stunts basically means that the warrior is now an unpredictable bag of tricks.
- Tide of Battle and Battleshaper keep the warrior in the action-economy competition.
- Uncanny Dodge and Riposte just mean that you're unusually alert.
The others need no further explanation, as they're all different aspects of lasting-power.
And as far as cautious combat not fitting all warrior types...
1. Not all warriors reach 6th level.
2. My class comes with alternative paths (horseback charger, daredevil, Commando nighmare and battlefield commander) that have no practice in cautious combat.
3. Now you have 14 bonus-feats worth of customization, on top of the fact that some feat-trees are already incorporated free of charge (Weapon Spec, Spring Attack etc).
4. In addition, you have some additional combat options.
Now, if you still think you can come up with any mundane warrior archetype that's not viable using my Warrior class, I'd be most happy to know about it, so I can deal with it appropriately.




I do want class abilities, and not just 'more feats,' but, at the same time, I want modular / customizable options (like the option of ditching armor profs for dodge bonuses to AC I mentioned upthread).

As far as dodge AC vs. armor, I'd suggest dealing with the issue with 2 feats that don't stack:
Canny Defense (movement subtlety): Wis-mod to dodge AC, up to 1/2 BAB, when light/medium loaded and not in heavy armor.
Defensive Grace (flashy defensive moves): Cha-mod to dodge AC, up to 1/2 BAB, when light-loaded and with light/no armor and no shield.

And yes. I’ve already noticed that they’re not 100% symmetrical, but as far as my Warrior goes, Wis is even more dump than for the core Fighter.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-27, 06:28 PM
Hmm. A lot of these will be difficult to integrate into D&D properly, to be honest. Going by the interpretation that hit points are stamina, luck and skill as much as anything else, a 10th level fighter can fight half a dozen commoners for hours before tiring even a little bit (i.e. they crit him).

A 10th level fighter is a figure straight out of myths, capable of wrestling trolls and slaying dragons (well, small dragons. Damn under CRed bastards). It should not be a surpire that mere mortals who don't even have a PC class can't hurt him.

Eldan
2010-04-28, 07:58 AM
Exactly. But what I meant was that in a system like this, I'm not sure if we need the realism of pommel strikes, fatigue and people bleeding out from simple slashes, or if we can even meaningfully incorporate it.

Set
2010-04-28, 08:37 AM
History is Fun: Y'know that wussy-ass "punching dagger" in your PhB? Never heard of it? Look it up. I'll wait. Sucks, doesn't it? In real life, it was a stabbing weapon known as the Katar. It gets better - pull a lever on it, and the blade splits open to reveal a third one inside, re-stabbing your opponent and opening the wound a good eight inches wider. Sounds much nastier now, doesn't it? History is full of weapons, just waiting to be statted into something useful.

*Every* weapon deemed 'Exotic' and requiring a feat to use should have some sort of totally cool options like this. As it is, the Spiked Chain is the only core 'Exotic' weapon that I consider worth a feat.

Alternately, various martial weapons (like the Bastard Sword) could have two lines, one for any old schmuck who takes it as a Martial Weapon, and one for 'advanced use' for someone who takes it as an Exotic Weapon and learns specialized / advanced techniques with it.


Complex Actions are Easily Interrupted:

1st and 2nd edition made spellcasting a hell of a lot easier to interrupt, that's for darn sure.

If the sole purpose of a Fighter Fix is to balance it against spellcasters, just require every spellcaster to use a full action to cast a spell. 5 ft. step, cast. Get rid of Quicken Spell as written, and introduce instead metamagic feats that allow one to cast a spell as a Standard Action, so that the spellcaster has to *pay* to cast spells as well as 3.X. The concept could be scaled, so that a spellcaster has to pay the full action cost for spells at his highest two tiers (cantrips and 1st level spells at 1st and 2nd level, 1st and 2nd spells at 3rd level, but can now cast cantrips as standard actions, etc.), so that a 9th level spellcaster can throw fireballs as standard actions, but if he metamagic-enhances them to 4th or 5th level (or casts enervation or black tentacles), he's back to the full action.

But that's not a 'Fighter fix' so much as a re-balancing of things back to pre-3rd edition standards.


Slash, Stab, Bite, Punch, Pommel Smash, Heel Stomp: A good punch to the face, heel kick, disarm, kidney shot or groin strike ends lives in a real fight. Make battle more fluid, and the Fighter's power increases exponentially. Potentially tied into the idea of "economy of action."

Every Fighter could choose to learn certain techniques, which impose Conditions on the struck foe;

Bleeding slash over the eye - causes Dazzled condition or Blindness on a failed Fort check.

Leg strike / foot stab - causes caltrop-like Lamed condition, for a brief time normally, or as caltrops on a failed Fort check.

Blow to the 'ead - dazed or stunned, depending on Fort check.

Knock the Wind out of Him - temporary fatigued or staggered condition, depending on Fort check.

Morningstar to the 'Boys' - sickened or nauseated, depending on Fort check.

Each special technique could require it's own feat.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-28, 09:18 AM
Many of those dirty tricks are already modeled by Stunning Fist, Feinting, Tripping and what not, so there are precendents for making them feats. But Fighters don't necessarily need more maneuvers, they need ways to use existing ones better than others.

nonsi
2010-04-28, 09:21 AM
I would like to take a look at that fix, but where is it Nonsi?

Here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/270794-my-3-5-house-rules-codex-now-fully-reorganized.html)

At the bottom of the OP there's an attached zip file of my house rules.

And here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8366731&postcount=50) you heve the necessary instructions for how to focus on the stuff that's relevant to fixing the Fighter.

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-28, 01:49 PM
To help against spellcasters, how about adding a new use othe intimidate skill?

Use it to intimidate a spellcaster (maybe a full round action to do it at range). If successful, he gains some percentage of arcane spell failure (maybe 25%) for several rounds. A concenration check could be made to reduce this penalty each round they are affected.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-04-28, 01:58 PM
To help against spellcasters, how about adding a new use othe intimidate skill?

Use it to intimidate a spellcaster (maybe a full round action to do it at range). If successful, he gains some percentage of arcane spell failure (maybe 25%) for several rounds. A concenration check could be made to reduce this penalty each round they are affected.

Contested Intimidate vs Concentration check to fizzle a spell?

Eldan
2010-04-28, 02:10 PM
Making spellcasters flinch. Nice idea.

AceofDeath
2010-04-28, 04:15 PM
hehe more anti magic for the fighter guy xD I would vote yes!

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-28, 06:53 PM
Here's a first try at a more official looking version.

As a full round action, you can try to intimidate an enemy spellcaster. This works exactly like demoralizing an opponent, except it can target anyone within 30 feet that can see you. If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round, but also gains 25% of arcane spell failure for 5 rounds, plus 1 round for each 5 higher than your opponent roll.

At the begining of his turn, the spellcaster can use a move action to try and regain enough composure to cast a spell. They make a concentration check against the original result of the intimadate check.If successfull, they can ignore the arcane spell failure given by the intimidation (but not from armor they may wear) until the end of the turn.


That's the base of it. I tried to make it average so that abilities or feat could modify it. For exemple: longer duration, more spell faillure chance/only halved with successfull concentration check, faster use, instant use to counter a spell being cast, affecting spells without somatic components, etc.

AceofDeath
2010-04-29, 02:21 AM
I defiantly like this one, but I reckon this should be one of the few anti magic Abilities else the fighter just becomes a mage killer class, but I guess this is really the only one discussed so far and I actually enjoy this idea. Might be good for given him an adge against any kind of caster.... How about spell like abilities?

Eldan
2010-04-29, 07:10 AM
Well, I'm throwing around ideas in my head for an extended Mage Slayer feat tree right now. I think something building on that could come out pretty effective.

I don't like a few details about it, though. With both only a 25% failure chance and a concentration check, the spell could come out pretty well. And I'm not sure it would be worth investing a full round action in it: the fighter loses his entire round, while the mage loses a move action, or nothing at all. Sounds like bad action economy.

AceofDeath
2010-04-29, 11:33 AM
Why not make it a swift action for the fighter? wouldn't that make it a bit more fair?

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-29, 02:10 PM
I don't like a few details about it, though. With both only a 25% failure chance and a concentration check, the spell could come out pretty well. And I'm not sure it would be worth investing a full round action in it: the fighter loses his entire round, while the mage loses a move action, or nothing at all. Sounds like bad action economy.

How about a standard action to use (like a normal demoralize), 50% chance, 25% with concentration check?

I tried to make not too powerful, to let room to improvise. I also don't want it to be too good as to become mandatory instead of only an option.

Eldan
2010-04-29, 02:32 PM
What I'd do:

Standard action and just a concentration check instead of a check and a percentile chance. Though the chance isn't too bad.

Ashtagon
2010-04-29, 02:46 PM
Alternate approach:

Fighter can, as an immediate action, make an opposed Intimidate vs Concentration check to disrupt a spell being cast within 30 feet of himself. The following modifiers apply to this check:

* +1 for each ally within 30 feet of either the fighter or the caster.
* -1 for each enemy within 30 feet of either the fighter or the caster.
* -10 penalty if the fighter is not the target of the spell, and is not affected by the area of the spell's effect.
* -2 for each previous attempt to use Intimidate in this manner. This counter is reset by a short (5 minute) rest.

This is possibly a little too good though.

Apalala
2010-04-29, 04:19 PM
Keep in mind, if you upgrade intimidate for the fighters, you also upgrade it for everyone else, including monsters. A solution that ended in

"Okay, roll a concentration check for casting defensively. Okay, roll a touch attack. Okay, roll to penetrate SR. Okay, roll a concentration check vs their intimidate. Okay, need to roll their saving throw."

Would obviously be not so elegant.

Instead, fix casting on the defensive. Casters are easily able to autopass that after a few levels. Pathfinder does up the DCs and downgrade the skill a little bit, but it doesn't really go far enough.

So, make concentration an opposed roll. Casting defensively is Concentration vs Attack/Intimidate, whichever is higher. It'd be possible to cast a spell while being threatened, but very risky.

THEN AGAIN

This has never been about nerfing casters, or helping fighters kick their asses. Rather than match fighters up against other classes, we should be looking at things from the monster manuals. Concentration is moot when you're casting from a half dozen spell-like abilities or a fire giant or an aboleth or etc.

So, it shouldn't be so much about fighters stopping people from casting spells. It should be about the fighter being able to survive spells and magic and debilitating things in general.

Zeful
2010-04-29, 04:33 PM
This has never been about nerfing casters, or helping fighters kick their asses. Rather than match fighters up against other classes.

True and since the game utilities humanoid monsters with classes as opponents (making the game PVP by nature) helping fighters kick caster ass helps match them up against other classes.

And no, allowing fighters to simply stop casters from casting using intimidate, does not mean every-body can. You could implement the feature as exclusive to the fighter class, some how.

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-29, 05:14 PM
What I'd do:

Standard action and just a concentration check instead of a check and a percentile chance. Though the chance isn't too bad.

How about the target can choose to make a concentration check against your intimidate if he wants instead of the modified level check.

I kinda prefer the % chance, because it shows the complexity of casting spells. Normaly, when you intimadate an opponent, he isshaken for 1 round, but after that round, he is able to clam himself enough that it stops interfering with his action. However, with "intimidate caster" variant, the movements used in casting are so precise that it takes him a few rounds to return to normal.


Alternate approach:

Fighter can, as an immediate action, make an opposed Intimidate vs Concentration check to disrupt a spell being cast within 30 feet of himself. The following modifiers apply to this check:

* +1 for each ally within 30 feet of either the fighter or the caster.
* -1 for each enemy within 30 feet of either the fighter or the caster.
* -10 penalty if the fighter is not the target of the spell, and is not affected by the area of the spell's effect.
* -2 for each previous attempt to use Intimidate in this manner. This counter is reset by a short (5 minute) rest.

This is possibly a little too good though.

I'd probably use somethg similar, but has the capstone of a feat chain (or something similar). I tried to make my version basic so that it can be relatively useful as is during a fighter's career, but can be expended upon if he so desires.


So, it shouldn't be so much about fighters stopping people from casting spells. It should be about the fighter being able to survive spells and magic and debilitating things in general.

How about making it affect spell-like abilities also? Any ideas on how to go about it?

True, the fighter needs ways to survive magic more efficiently. But that dosen't mean he shouldn't have more proactive ways of doing it (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure).

This is by no means a "hard guide" on what the fighter absolutly needs. I'm just brainstorming ideas and adding my thoughts on others (probably not the only one here) on what could be useful. So if you have ideas on how to do what you talked about, i'd be interrested to see them and help.:smallsmile:


And no, allowing fighters to simply stop casters from casting using intimidate, does not mean every-body can. You could implement the feature as exclusive to the fighter class, some how.

Or give the basic version to everyone, and make it that only the fighter can "upgrade" it.

Also I don't think everyone has intimidate as a class skill. Those that don't will be less tempted to use it.

Lord_Gareth
2010-04-29, 08:22 PM
If we're going to make the Fighter class able to compete with other classes, we do have to consider spellcasters. Many villains are spellcasters, and a nice glitterdust will render a fighter as good as dead, let alone phantasmal killer, flesh to stone, feeblemind, and their ilk. A system to interrupt spells - or simply getting rid of "defensive casting" - would work out great to help a Fighter contribute.

As far as one of your stated goals - turning a Fighter into a tank - here are a few reasons for monsters to attack him instead of that damn wizard;

You Said What About My Mother?: The Goad feat is a really bad representation of this, but the Knight's Challenge is a pretty good approximation - taunting, playing on an enemy's fears, anxieties, and pet peeves and other forms of psychological warfare can get monsters to attack the Fighter. Telling a Green Dragon that its mother was an iguana? Flipping the finger to a villain with a hair-trigger temper? All good ideas.

That Was My Tendon: Crippling attacks like knee-shattering heel kicks, broken noses, sprays of blood to the face, nerve blows, kidney shots, ec cetera hurt, and they impair bodily functions. Is the wizard going to cast when he's choking on his Adam's Apple? How about with a broken wrist? How tall will that giant stand if you shatter his kneecap? Archers with no eyes have difficulty shooting. These sorts of crippling blows are also completely nonmagical, but handily simulate certain spells. Even better? In D&D, they're not permanent (regeneration), meaning that you can afford to practically give them away.

Stop. Hammertime: Systems, feats, or other abilities to intercept movement are great. Move ten feet as an immediate action? Gain reach with a five-foot step? Hell, try this one some time - hold a four foot stick and fight your unarmed friend. Now give your friend a one foot stick. Keep upping the length of his stick until you truly comprehend the phenomenal advantage - and risk - of even a foot's worth of extra reach. No, I'm not saying we need a complex reach system. But the current one could stand a little bit of editing.

Take it in the Shield: Why don't shields apply to touch attacks? Honestly, I've tried to get someone to not touch me when I'm holding a shield (I love you, Dagorhir), and it's much easier, especially when you can give them a nice, hard pimp-slap with it. Finger of Death probably fizzles on a shield's surface, and even disintegrate would hit the shield instead. A simple houserule that helps so very much.

Apalala
2010-04-29, 08:28 PM
I don't like the idea of taunting so much. Fighters shouldn't be required to talk trash to hold an enemy's attention. I much prefer punishing the enemy for not attacking you rather than forcing the enemy to attack you. Overwhelming Assault from phb2 is a good example of a tanking feat. Or look at the 4e fighter's marking and combat superiority abilities.

Lord_Gareth
2010-04-29, 08:32 PM
Not required. Encouraged. Capable. And it has fine mythic, literary, and gaming precedent.

nonsi
2010-04-29, 09:51 PM
Consider this guys: Making Intimidate an "anti-casters" tool practically shoehorns Fighters to put ranks into it.
1. If you do shoehorn a class into taking ranks in a specific skill, it should get at least some of them for free.
2. Not all folklore witch-hunters/warlock-opposers are any good at intimidating. This is not a hero's trait.
3. What if I don't want my warrior to be an intimidating dude? (e.g. I envision my character as being shay and insecure)

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-30, 12:25 AM
Idealy other "anti-casters" tool would also be available, not making intimidate mandatory. That way, other character concept could be made.

nonsi
2010-04-30, 01:03 AM
Idealy other "anti-casters" tool would also be available, not making intimidate mandatory. That way, other character concept could be made.

Action-economy, resiliency, mobility and a lot of on-the-fly options – these are the best tools I know of for dealing with casters without forcing an archetype.
When you top at staying alive and valid, have exploitable high-mobility and means of surprising your opponents and coping with a lot of challenges........... That’s a good enough incentive for others to come after you (you’re just as threatening as anyone else). That’s how you punish your opponents for not targeting you.
Then “mage-hunter” is just one of many viable options.

Eldan
2010-04-30, 01:35 AM
Well, shields applying against touch attack is a house rule I've had in my list for a while now. It's what they are for, after all.



What about the following, slightly simpler take on intimidating spellcasters:

Shaken
A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, as well as a 50% arcane spell failure chance for all spells with somatic components.
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.

Eldan
2010-04-30, 07:37 AM
A few ideas, please...

I'm trying to expand the Mage Slayer feat tree, probably merging it with the combat focus tree for enabling a more mystical fighter archetype good at ignoring magical protections and illusions through intense focus and awareness.

The problem? I have no ideas what the feats should do. Any suggestion? We have Pierce magical Concealment/protection, what else should such a mage slayer be able to do?


Edit: Oh, and fighter should totally get mettle, now that I'm thinking about it. That's about as archetypal for fighters as you can get.

DracoDei
2010-04-30, 09:21 AM
Is anyone ever going to comment on the rest of my feats etc? It seemed like someone was going to when they had time to get through it, but that was a while back...

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-30, 03:06 PM
What about the following, slightly simpler take on intimidating spellcasters:

Shaken
A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, as well as a 50% arcane spell failure chance for all spells with somatic components.
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.

Only problem I can see is that intimidate only gives 1 round of shaken. So you use up a standard action to have a 50% chance of stopping 1 spell(maybe 2).

We could change intimidate to make shaken last longuer though.


The problem? I have no ideas what the feats should do. Any suggestion? We have Pierce magical Concealment/protection, what else should such a mage slayer be able to do?

increased protection aginst mind control effect? or maybe spell resistance as a capstone?



Is anyone ever going to comment on the rest of my feats etc?

I like Blocker and Improved Blocker. However, i'd like to see an option to eventually tackle your opponent (maybe a bull rush, stops movement, trip him, something like that?)

For the skills one, it's an interesting concept. I'd be willing to try them sometime.

I like the idea behind Gemini strike. The description is long but once you grok the meaning, it's not to hard to use.

And for ignore opponent, I'd go for combat maneuver, but make a feat that reduces the penalties for ignoring an opponent. I'd imagine something similar to the matrix when Neo becomes the one and blocks Smith's attacks without really trying.

Hummm... Maybe reduce the penalties when ignoring opponent with lower BAB than yours?

Eldan
2010-04-30, 03:39 PM
Perhaps the duration of shaking depends on how much the check was failed by?

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-30, 03:56 PM
Perhaps the duration of shaking depends on how much the check was failed by?

That be good. That lets the door open to add something (feat or ability) to make it better. For exemple, if the normal is +1 round/ 5 over, we could upgrade it to +1 round/ 3 over.

DracoDei
2010-04-30, 07:52 PM
And for ignore opponent, I'd go for combat maneuver,
You mean like "Full Defense" is? That is just too painful for rogues... they would never get flank-sneak again...

but make a feat that reduces the penalties for ignoring an opponent. I'd imagine something similar to the matrix when Neo becomes the one and blocks Smith's attacks without really trying.
A feat to reduce the penalties works.


Hummm... Maybe reduce the penalties when ignoring opponent with lower BAB than yours?
That would be almost all the time, since if something has equal or higher BAB than you, you probably don't want to ignore it... wait... that would be less true for 1/2 BAB classes and 3/4 BAB classes would be questionable... I see what you did there... Mmmm... could work.

Bergor Terraf
2010-04-30, 08:00 PM
Glad to be of assistance :smallcool:

itastelikelove
2010-05-02, 03:04 PM
Man...I'm busy for a few days and I miss out on all kinds of cool stuff. Serves me right, I guess.

Thanks to everyone who has been helping to keep this thread (and our favorite underdog class) alive and kicking people in the soft bits.

Here's an idea I had when I first started working on a Fighter fix in my head. It adds a bit of action economy, some extra movement range over the course of a turn, a way to interrupt spellcasters, and a way to protect your allies.

Heroic Tackle - As an immediate action, you may charge up to your speed towards any enemy or ally and immediately attempt a Bull Rush against that target, with the usual bonus and penalty for charging. If the Bull Rush is successful, your target ends up prone in their new location, and you may deal damage equal to an unarmed attack as you knock them down. After performing a Heroic Tackle, whether the Bull Rush succeeded or not, you are prone and flat-footed.

Instead of being an immediate action, the original version of this let you ready one Heroic Tackle as a free action in addition to any other actions you take during the round. What do you think? Which version do you like better?

Actually, now that I think about it, I like the readied action version a little better...you have a little less flexibility with your targeting, it lets you save your immediate actions for some other purpose, and i think it preserves the feel of a bodyguard eyeing up potentially dangerous characters in a crowd.

itastelikelove
2010-05-02, 05:05 PM
Is anyone ever going to comment on the rest of my feats etc? It seemed like someone was going to when they had time to get through it, but that was a while back...

I think that was me. Sorry about that. I've been busy a bit lately, and if I'm not careful, I end up spending WAY too time reading the forums here. Anyway, here you go - at least a couple of words about everything:

True Haste. - I like it. Useful, and more helpful to melee classes than casters, but it is still a spell. And yeah, dragons...ouch...

Steel Will fighting (etc.) - I like those a lot. They're not incredibly powerful, especially since you won't want to take those penalties all the time (although at higher levels you might be able to without slowing down much...), but I like that you can choose to have those bonuses when you really need them. And I think it does make a lot of sense to extend the concept of "Fighting Defensively" to encompass other kinds of defense as well. I may very well incorporate this into my game, even though i try to avoid house rules (the simpler the better for me..."simple" meaning everyone can look it up themselves when I inevitably forget it)

Blocker [Fighter] - That's a pretty good "brick wall" feat. Makes Total Defense a lot more attractive. Turns it into something that a Defender would do, rather than someone who is just defending themselves.

And the improved version compliments it quite nicely. Rarely useful up to its full potential, I'm sure, but being able to make one or two extra AoOs now and then is still pretty nice.

(I'm not 100% sure on this, but I remember seeing somewhere that any given action can only provoke one AoO per person...so that running through all of a person's threatened squares still gets that person only one attack. If this is true, you might consider adding a feat that negates it while in Total Defense, so that you can follow someone up to your full movement or max AoOs per round. THAT should get people to stay the hell away pretty effectively.)

Brawn Over Brain - Interesting. I guess that works...not for everybody, of course, but a decent option when it's needed. Not much more to say about that.

Gemini Strike - I like the idea a lot, but it's hard to read and cumbersome to use (looks that way to me, anyway). I think I understand the intent (feel free to correct me if I get it wrong...it's trying to simulate simultaneous action/coordination benefiting hit-and-run attacks, right?), and I would simplify it thusly:

Gemini Strike (prereqs, etc.) - You may gain the benefits of this feat only when all members participating in the Gemini Strike act on the same initiative, with no other combatant taking its initiative between any two members of the group. This may require that some members of the group delay their turns. All players whose characters are participating in the group action declare all of their movement and attacks for the round, as well as any other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity and other effects that can stop a moving character are resolved as normal, at their normal locations. A character who is stopped in the middle of their movement is only considered to be participating in the group action until the space in which they were stopped, and neither gain the benefits of this feat, nor grant them to others after that point. The benefits of such laborious coordination are as follows: each participating character is considered to be occupying every space through which they passed for purposes of determining flanking, granting allies cover, and other benefits of positioning, until the end of the maneuver. (note: you still need at least one ally to flank an opponent - you can't just run around them and count them as flanked by yourself) Penalties for positioning, such as granting cover to enemies, are only counted for the first and last square occupied by each character. Attacks made during this maneuver all deal an additional 1d6 points of precision damage, if the target is flanked or denied their Dex bonus to AC. If multiple allies attack the same target, they each receive a +1 bonus to hit for each ally attacking that target.

I think that cleans it up a bit. I don't mind allowing characters to get the benefits from any point along anyone's move...I can't imagine using this with chargers, since it's all about the Spring Attack, so it's single-moves only, and I think coordination can make up for timing just fine, as far as justification is concerned. That, and you have a minimum 3 feat +1 class ability requirement, so it had better be worth using. I also don't mind giving Fighters who take this feat 1d6 precision damage...that won't break anything. And increasing the to-hit bonus by having more people gang up on a target just makes sense.

The biggest problem I can see is what happens if someone gets tripped or otherwise stopped during their movement. That is, after all, one of the abilities which almost all of us think that a basic Fighter should have. So we should probably assume that people should be trying to break up your group like that. I tried to address that issue above, by requiring that you resolve those attacks before resolving any of the group's attacks, but I'm not sure if it came out clear enough.

Ignore Opponent - Not bad. Kind of a poor man's Uncanny Dodge. Ditto to most of Bergor Terraf's comments, I guess. I was going to suggest increasing the maximum number of opponents you can ignore, but it's pretty easy to pop a potion of Owl's Wisdom if you see a rogue in the enemy party.

Flickering Weapons - Not sure what I think about that...effective, I guess, but not terribly exciting.

Mole and Termite Weapons - Those are pretty specific. Not sure they would get much use, but it's a fun idea.

DracoDei
2010-05-03, 11:55 AM
True Haste. - I like it. Useful, and more helpful to melee classes than casters, but it is still a spell. And yeah, dragons...ouch...
I say keep it, and bump CRs as needed.


Steel Will fighting (etc.) - I like those a lot. They're not incredibly powerful, especially since you won't want to take those penalties all the time (although at higher levels you might be able to without slowing down much...), but I like that you can choose to have those bonuses when you really need them. And I think it does make a lot of sense to extend the concept of "Fighting Defensively" to encompass other kinds of defense as well. I may very well incorporate this into my game, even though i try to avoid house rules (the simpler the better for me..."simple" meaning everyone can look it up themselves when I inevitably forget it)
It being an addition, rather than a change means it shouldn't be any more confusing than a homebrew feat or class in the game (don't know if you use those though).


Blocker [Fighter] - That's a pretty good "brick wall" feat. Makes Total Defense a lot more attractive. Turns it into something that a Defender would do, rather than someone who is just defending themselves.

And the improved version compliments it quite nicely. Rarely useful up to its full potential, I'm sure, but being able to make one or two extra AoOs now and then is still pretty nice.

The improved version means you can stop Zerg Rush tactics a bit better. Of course, I think most GMs find that too cumbersome to work with, and perhaps of questionable utility since many weak opponents don't really stand up to a few strong ones in D&D (but see the link to the improved Mob and the Unit mechanics (all in one thread) I have stored myself a link to in my extended sig).

(I'm not 100% sure on this, but I remember seeing somewhere that any given action can only provoke one AoO per person...so that running through all of a person's threatened squares still gets that person only one attack. If this is true, you might consider adding a feat that negates it while in Total Defense, so that you can follow someone up to your full movement or max AoOs per round. THAT should get people to stay the hell away pretty effectively.)
You shouldn't have to move more than once in most cases, but I agree that something (maybe this feat, maybe not) should allow 1 AoO per square, rather than 1 AoO per enemy move-action.

Gemini Strike - I like the idea a lot, but it's hard to read and cumbersome to use (looks that way to me, anyway). I think I understand the intent (feel free to correct me if I get it wrong...it's trying to simulate simultaneous action/coordination benefiting hit-and-run attacks, right?), and I would simplify it thusly:

Gemini Strike (prereqs, etc.) - You may gain the benefits of this feat only when all members participating in the Gemini Strike act on the same initiative, with no other combatant taking its initiative between any two members of the group. This may require that some members of the group delay their turns.
This part is probably clearer than my original section, and I admit I was short-sighted in not considering cases where more than 3 members of a group would have this feat.

All players whose characters are participating in the group action declare all of their movement and attacks for the round, as well as any other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity.
Eh, I like allowing a little more flexibility than having to decide everything ahead of time.

Attacks of opportunity and other effects that can stop a moving character are resolved as normal, at their normal locations. A character who is stopped in the middle of their movement is only considered to be participating in the group action until the space in which they were stopped, and neither gain the benefits of this feat, nor grant them to others after that point. The benefits of such laborious coordination are as follows: each participating character is considered to be occupying every space through which they passed for purposes of determining flanking, granting allies cover, and other benefits of positioning, until the end of the maneuver. (note: you still need at least one ally to flank an opponent - you can't just run around them and count them as flanked by yourself) Penalties for positioning, such as granting cover to enemies, are only counted for the first and last square occupied by each character.
I don't like any of this, see below.

Attacks made during this maneuver all deal an additional 1d6 points of precision damage, if the target is flanked or denied their Dex bonus to AC. If multiple allies attack the same target, they each receive a +1 bonus to hit for each ally attacking that target.
This part could work... even making the to-hit not dependent on the sneak conditions. You also need language allowing for (Improved) Uncanny Dodge... perhaps "Just as if the every attacker had 2 more levels of rogue then they actually do".


I think that cleans it up a bit. I don't mind allowing characters to get the benefits from any point along anyone's move...I can't imagine using this with chargers, since it's all about the Spring Attack, so it's single-moves only, and I think coordination can make up for timing just fine, as far as justification is concerned.
I disagree with this last point, my entire fluff justification for adding sneak dice and the +1 to hit over and above flanking (which to me implies coordination), is that the timing IS exactly the same, forcing the opponent to SIMULTANEOUSLY defeat attacks coming from opposite directions. Do as you like, but this is contrary to the original intent. I think I have seen a third party feat that increases the to-hit bonuses for flanking if both flankers have the feat. That would be more what you are thinking of and would synergize well with my original Gemini Strike. I suppose as long as we are giving bonus damage and to-hit we can drop the 10' movement requirement like you did.

That, and you have a minimum 3 feat +1 class ability requirement, so it had better be worth using. I also don't mind giving Fighters who take this feat 1d6 precision damage...that won't break anything. And increasing the to-hit bonus by having more people gang up on a target just makes sense.
I dunno that I would consider +6 BAB to be a "class feature" per se, but I mention this only in case you didn't see that option. Giving 1d6 sneak to fighters would probably be fine.



The biggest problem I can see is what happens if someone gets tripped or otherwise stopped during their movement. That is, after all, one of the abilities which almost all of us think that a basic Fighter should have. So we should probably assume that people should be trying to break up your group like that. I tried to address that issue above, by requiring that you resolve those attacks before resolving any of the group's attacks, but I'm not sure if it came out clear enough.
That would be included in my version...


Ignore Opponent - Not bad. Kind of a poor man's Uncanny Dodge. Ditto to most of Bergor Terraf's comments, I guess. I was going to suggest increasing the maximum number of opponents you can ignore, but it's pretty easy to pop a potion of Owl's Wisdom if you see a rogue in the enemy party.

Flickering Weapons - Not sure what I think about that...effective, I guess, but not terribly exciting.
Visually impressive at least, and if is a step towards solving "effective" then that is enough for me... other things can work on "exciting". Will have to go back and reread Bergor Terraf's comments (might edit in here if I do).

Mole and Termite Weapons - Those are pretty specific. Not sure they would get much use, but it's a fun idea.
Yeah, pretty much...

DracoDei
2010-05-03, 12:33 PM
I like Blocker and Improved Blocker. However, i'd like to see an option to eventually tackle your opponent (maybe a bull rush, stops movement, trip him, something like that?)
I would support allowing AoO's to be the touch-attacks that start grapples. Ditto for trip attempts. Not even require a feat to do it... just straight combat option.

And for ignore opponent, I'd go for combat maneuver,
TO ITASTELIKELOVE: ...you people just hate rogues, don't you? I thought this was supposed to be about powering up the fighter, not nerfing rogues.

Bergor Terraf
2010-05-03, 02:26 PM
you people just hate rogues, don't you? I thought this was supposed to be about powering up the fighter, not nerfing rogues.

How about changing it so that you can only ignore opponent with lower BAB than you? Would that still be too problematic for rogues?

DracoDei
2010-05-03, 06:53 PM
If everybody can do it? Yes, absolutely too powerful.

Eldan
2010-05-04, 05:06 AM
Another thing:
The idea has been mentioned before by other people, but for my little feat project, I'm thinking of doing a style mastery feat for the Weapon Groups in the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm)

Each of those should give several boni, as well as new abilities. So, I need some help and inspiration. What can a weapon master do with:

Axes, Bows, Claw Weapons, Crossbows, Double Weapons, Flails and Chains, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Maces, Picks and Hammers, Polearms, Spears and Lances?

For starters, I'm thinking of including flurry mechanics with blades, the ability to ignore some armour or damage reduction with blunt weapons, and to do haft strikes and parries with polearms and spears. Probably also an ability similar to "can be used with our without reach" for spears and polearms.

What else can be done, especially things which other feats don't already well replicate?

itastelikelove
2010-05-05, 01:30 AM
TO ITASTELIKELOVE: ...you people just hate rogues, don't you? I thought this was supposed to be about powering up the fighter, not nerfing rogues.

It's not that we hate rogues - it just happens that the rogue's particular flaw is to either tear things to shreds or fail miserably in combat. So anything that protects you against sneak attacks ends up making rogues worthless in combat. That probably SHOULD be fixed, even just a little bit (DMing with a rogue in the party kinda sucks...no undead or decent-level Barbarians or constructs or oozes, or etc., unless you enjoy making them cry like little girls :smallbiggrin:), but we're not doing that here.

Admittedly, yeah, I was pretty much only thinking about the benefit for fighters, and wasn't thinking about how everyone else could take the feat. That could potentially create some very sad rogues. (I guess that's pretty much why we had the whole debate over whether or not to depend on homebrewed/powered-up feats for a fighter fix, since anyone can take feats. But we just did that one, so i'm not going to start it up again already. :smallamused: Especially since that's not even the point I was trying to make anyway.)

On the other hand, I think it should work out OK in most cases if you can't ignore people with a higher BAB than you. The feat becomes useless to Sorcerers and Wizards, and medium BAB characters can't use it against full BAB characters. Even full BAB characters with a couple points of LA couldn't use it against everybody. So the rogue just needs to make friends with a barbarian, fighter, paladin, melee ranger, cleric with Divine Power (or etc.), Wizard with a few Summon spells, or a dragon, and they'll be able to flank-sneak attack most humanoids and monsters that they could sneak attack anyway.

DracoDei
2010-05-05, 01:49 AM
It's not that we hate rogues - it just happens that the rogue's particular flaw is to either tear things to shreds or fail miserably in combat. So anything that protects you against sneak attacks ends up making rogues worthless in combat. That probably SHOULD be fixed, even just a little bit (DMing with a rogue in the party kinda sucks...no undead or decent-level Barbarians or constructs or oozes, or etc., unless you enjoy making them cry like little girls :smallbiggrin:), but we're not doing that here.

Admittedly, yeah, I was pretty much only thinking about the benefit for fighters, and wasn't thinking about how everyone else could take the feat. That could potentially create some very sad rogues. (I guess that's pretty much why we had the whole debate over whether or not to depend on homebrewed/powered-up feats for a fighter fix, since anyone can take feats. But we just did that one, so i'm not going to start it up again already. :smallamused: Especially since that's not even the point I was trying to make anyway.)

On the other hand, I think it should work out OK in most cases if you can't ignore people with a higher BAB than you. The feat becomes useless to Sorcerers and Wizards, and medium BAB characters can't use it against full BAB characters. Even full BAB characters with a couple points of LA couldn't use it against everybody. So the rogue just needs to make friends with a barbarian, fighter, paladin, melee ranger, cleric with Divine Power (or etc.), Wizard with a few Summon spells, or a dragon, and they'll be able to flank-sneak attack most humanoids and monsters that they could sneak attack anyway.
Having it as a FEAT was never something I objected to... I created the feat in the first place...
It was having it as a combat option... like tripping or bull-rushing, or total-defense that I thought was grossly unfair.
Now that I realize that you NEVER want to ignore the rogue them-self (I had a brain-fart when I was thinking about the discussion), it all works out... probably.
Sidenote: I have always considered that the Rogue really was supposed to be a Striker, and that his drawback was supposed to be that he had to take risks to get his damage... Tumbling past the enemy line to get behind them for the flank, that sort of thing, and d6 hit-dice... it really is too bad about the oozes, constructs, and undead... maybe if they weren't so prevalent at higher levels... or have I got that wrong? And maybe if Tumble scaled with level (there are two RAW ways of doing that, but neither are core... opposed Tumble checks, and Reflex VS Tumble) they wouldn't have it so easy when they had a shot at all at higher levels... Eh, whatever... this is the FIGHTER thread, not the ROGUE thread.

Eldan
2010-05-05, 02:37 AM
What I and, I think, many other people did was to let the tumble DC either scale with enemy BAB (something like DC 15+enemy BAB makes it difficult but doable) or just let your tumble check replace your AC against AoOs.

How about, for rogues, if having a weird anatomy didn't just entirely protect you from sneak attack, but instead made sneak attacks weaker?

Construct: -2d6 sneak attack
Undead or elemental: -3d6 sneak attack
Ooze or other with amorphous anatomy: -4d6 sneak attack

So a a robot can still be stabbed in a particularly important gear, or have a fuel line cut by a high-level rogue. A gelatinous cube, on the other hand, is almost impossible to stab, as are some weird aberrations and other slime monsters.

itastelikelove
2010-05-06, 12:29 AM
What I and, I think, many other people did was to let the tumble DC either scale with enemy BAB (something like DC 15+enemy BAB makes it difficult but doable) or just let your tumble check replace your AC against AoOs.

That's a decent fix to the Tumble skill. Gives Fighters (and everyone else) a small boost against rogues without taking away their only toy.

Actually, that gave me a bit of an idea...what would you think about a class ability for Fighters that adds half their level (or some similar arbitrary amount) to their effective BAB for any opposed rolls? It's clearly not going to be all that powerful, and it won't really fix anything important, but I think it gives a feel of superior combat skills, since it will make them better at disarming, grappling and (with the above modified Tumble rules) foiling Tumbling foes. Maybe add feats or fighting style/combat role specialization abilities that carry the bonus over to the other combat maneuvers? or maybe even to attack rolls, for weapons masters?


How about, for rogues, if having a weird anatomy didn't just entirely protect you from sneak attack, but instead made sneak attacks weaker?

I like that. Nice and simple, logically justifiable, and sets up a nice baseline for extrapolation into feats, class features, armor enchantments, etc. The same system could potentially carry over into crits, too. Maybe:

Construct: -2d6 sneak attack, crit multiplier -1
Undead or elemental: -3d6 sneak attack, crit multiplier -2
Ooze or other with amorphous anatomy: -4d6 sneak attack, crit immune

So you would need a x3 crit weapon to get a x2 crit on a construct, and a x4 for undead and elementals. Then you could, for example, say that Light Fortified armor = construct, Med = undead, Heavy = ooze, and do away with percent chances on your magic armor. The biggest (logical) problem there is that all of the x4 crit weapons are piercing. I don't think I could justify critting an elemental with a scythe...although maybe you could crit an earth elemental with a pick...


Sidenote: I have always considered that the Rogue really was supposed to be a Striker, and that his drawback was supposed to be that he had to take risks to get his damage... Tumbling past the enemy line to get behind them for the flank, that sort of thing, and d6 hit-dice... it really is too bad about the oozes, constructs, and undead... maybe if they weren't so prevalent at higher levels... or have I got that wrong?

The risks are the FUN drawback. Rampant immunity is the painful one.

I think that, by CR, sneak-immune creatures are most common in the 6-12 range (not actually doing any math, just can't think of that much variety in the high-CR undead and constructs). But what's most important is the DM and setting. If my campaign calls for a 3-5 session adventure in an undead metropolis...too bad.


this is the FIGHTER thread, not the ROGUE thread.

Oh yeah, right. I guess we probably shouldn't be discussing sneak attack mechanics.

Unless, of course, we want to give Fighters sneak attacks. How's that for an effective TWF build?:smallwink:

itastelikelove
2010-05-06, 03:15 PM
Another thing:
The idea has been mentioned before by other people, but for my little feat project, I'm thinking of doing a style mastery feat for the Weapon Groups in the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm)

Each of those should give several boni, as well as new abilities. So, I need some help and inspiration. What can a weapon master do with:

Axes, Bows, Claw Weapons, Crossbows, Double Weapons, Flails and Chains, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Maces, Picks and Hammers, Polearms, Spears and Lances?

For starters, I'm thinking of including flurry mechanics with blades, the ability to ignore some armour or damage reduction with blunt weapons, and to do haft strikes and parries with polearms and spears. Probably also an ability similar to "can be used with our without reach" for spears and polearms.

What else can be done, especially things which other feats don't already well replicate?

Alright, let's take a crack at this. (warning: brainstorming ahead. do not expect high quality answers.)

Axes - 1. Axes are meant for splitting things. Maybe bonuses to sundering, especially against armor. Or better yet, automatically damage armor when you successful hit your target. 2. Axes are difficult to block or parry with. Maybe a dodge bonus to AC due to practice dodging instead of blocking? 3. Axes are heavy and damaging. maybe a stunning or sickening or nauseating effect? maybe some ability damage?

Bows - 1. Bows are all about accuracy. Bring back called shots? Maybe simulate called shots with a variety of ability damage or negative effects based on the theme of attacking bodyparts. 2. Archers want to shoot fast. There are already some good feats for this, though. 3. Bows aren't good in close quarters. Eliminate AoOs for using a bow. Maybe grant an additional bonus to your sidearm. 4. Archers don't get AoOs. This doesn't make sense logically, but it does make sense for game balance. Kinda. If you allow AoOs, try not to let it get TOO broken.

Claw Weapons - 1. Are there even enough of these to be their own group? 2. Some can be used like punching. Flurry. maybe some other Monk abilities? 3. They're inspired by animals. Pounce. Easy enough. Improved Grab. Maybe? 4. They fit onto your hands (or something like that). immune to Disarm? Bonuses to disarm?

Crossbows - 1. Shooting is shooting. Pretty much the same as Bows. 2. Crossbows need to be reloaded quickly. Easy enough. 3. A loaded crossbow is always ready. Hipfire - get a special surprise round in every combat, fire one shot at -5 to hit.

Double Weapons - 1. Are used like two weapons. Flurry? 2. Are used like staffs. Good parry bonuses. Maybe parry+counterattack? 3. Are used as two-handed weapons. They usually have a long shaft, so maybe add reach when using two-handed? 4. All of the above. Incentives for changing fighting styles? Maybe just allow the user to switch during a full attack - make two attacks at +11 (with TWF penalties), then one at +6 and +1 (with two-handed benefits).

Flails and Chains - 1. Bendy. Attack two foes at once? Reach? Attack around corners, or around other enemies? 2. can wrap around things. Better disarming? Indiana Jones? 3. Constant movement can confuse opponents. Faster feinting. maybe a benefit against tumbling, or more ways to get AoOs?

Heavy Blades - 1. slower than other blades. Maybe some defensive abilities to compensate. Blocking? Dodging (see Axes)? 2. Stronger than other blades. More damage? not real exciting. Improved Power Attack (see Frenzied Berserker, CW)? 3. bigger than other blades. Reach. bonus on sunder/disarm? 4. More weight = more momentum. free whirlwind attack. free cleave/Great cleave feat? Attack two opponents with one attack?

Light Blades - 1. Fast weapons. Extra attacks. maybe even on single attacks, or AoOs. 2. Easy to parry with. AC bonus. Maybe a counter attack? 3. Wielded in one hand. bonus to offhand: shield or TWF. Other bonuses to skills of AC or BAB or other when offhand is empty? Throw sand (etc.) with offhand?

Maces - 1. Often have sharp corners. ability to deal piercing damage. some sort of armor piercing? Sunder damage on successful hit (see Axes)? 2. Bludgeoning weapons. stunning or similar effect? Maybe damage to mental ability scores? 3. One- and two-handed versions. Consider combining with hammers, etc., then dividing into light/heavy. Extra attacks or AC bonus with light versions. more damage or negative effects with heavy versions. maybe reach with larger maces. maybe momentum-based abilities with heavy versions (see Heavy Blades)

Picks and Hammers - 1. two different types of weapons. maybe put hammers and maces together, make picks their own group. 2. Hammers are heavy, and hit hard. Defenitely some stunning or similar effects, maybe some mental ability damage. momentume-based abilities (see Heavy Blades)? 3. Picks are made to penetrate armor. Reduce opponent's armor bonus. damage armor? 4. Puncture wounds bleed, and bruise, and heal slowly. Bleed effect. reduced effect from healing spells? ability damage? 5. Picks are curved. bonus to disarm or trip.

Polearms - 1. Polearms require distance. Additional 5-foot steps. Maybe when taking AoOs or after attacking with weapon set against a charge? Maybe any time an attack misses? Maybe once per round, with an opposed roll or skill check? 2. There are many types of Polearm. One ability from another weapon group, based on type of polearm (with spearhead, with axehead, with blade head, with pick head, with hammer head, etc.) 3. Can be used like a staff. Use like double weapon at close range. Parry bonus?

Spears - 1. Spears are for stabbing. Puncture wound bonuses (see picks)? 2. Short spears can be used very effectively with shields. No penalty for fighting defensively. Improved shield bonus? 3. Spears can be thrown. bonuses to hit or range? AoOs with thrown spear? 4. Spears have long shafts. Reach. attack with butt?

Lances - 1. Used on Horseback. Ride bonuses? boring. maybe attack multiple targets on a Ride-by? 2. Reinforced stabbing weapon. Maybe lift and carry opponent (bullrush) after successful attack. 3. Made for charging. Maybe free trample (overrun) after successful attack. 4. Not so great when not charging. better attack/damage when not charging? Bonus to sidearm use?

There's a fair amount of repetition there, but there's only so much variation between the kinds of sticks you can use to hit things with. Hopefully this helps and/or inspires a little bit.

Eldan
2010-05-06, 04:57 PM
These weapon groups aren't my own invention. They are in the SRD, you can find them there. I'll have a look at your suggestions...

Axes: perhaps a bonus against shields? They are good for splitting shields, afterall.

Bows: perhaps a cover effect instead of AoOs, bonus when preparing attacks?

Claws: how about adding your unarmed damage with them?

Crossbows: how about firing at -5 as a swift action?

Flails: I really don't have much of an idea what to do here. Disarming sounds good, though. Aren't they difficult to parry, as well?

Heavy Blades: cleave sounds good, I'd say. At least how they are shown in fantasy.

Maces, hammers, picks: I guess since warhammers often also had a point, they moved picks here. Anyway, armour piercing and stunning effect?

Lances: actually, with Spirited Charge, they already have their own super feat, kind off...

Ashtagon
2010-05-06, 05:03 PM
Might wan t to pick some of teh ideas I had in my own weapons revision thread. The main ideas i had were:

crossbows - reposition these as slow/high damage.

swords: I made a straight/curved/fencing distinction, rather than a light/heavy distinction. Straight gets "riposte" (bonus on attacks of opportunity), curved gets heavy crits, and fencing gets finesse.

Bergor Terraf
2010-05-06, 05:38 PM
Claw weapons : Think about all times you've seen exemples of claw weapons in fiction. How many can you remember that used just one? For this reason, i'd go for some kind of bonus for dual wileding them.

Flails are bendy, maybe ignore shield bonus?

Polearms: How about always be considered set against a charge?

BTW, in what category does the scythe go?

Ashtagon
2010-05-06, 05:45 PM
BTW, in what category does the scythe go?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151357

I gave them their own category. Looking over my notes, I noticed I gave them the same basic features as for curved swords. They should probably gain trip too.

cdawg
2010-05-06, 10:16 PM
Uh... forgive me if this has been mentioned ad nauseum before, but has anybody spoken towards the theory of asymmetrical balance? ie, fighters are stronger in the early levels, wizards are stronger in the higher ones? it was always my understanding that this was intentional?

Tavar
2010-05-06, 10:57 PM
The problem is that that's bad game design(many games don't go from level 1-20, characters change, etc). Also, Fighters are only stronger for maybe the first 3 levels or so, which are the rocket tag levels, so being melee is extra dangerous. That's not even considering stuff like Druids, which is stronger due to animal companions.

Eldan
2010-05-07, 01:39 AM
And with enough books added, the fighter is not even stronger anymore in the early levels. A wizard runs out of spells fast, unless he's a focused specialist or elven generalist, but he can still shut the fighter down with one spell, or end a typical encounter.

Edit: according to the SRD, the Scythe is in Picks and Hammers. That's just stupid, no? I'd say it belongs in polearms, with the glaive and ranseur.

Weapon Groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm)

Eldan
2010-05-07, 03:10 AM
Okay, weapon ideas I have so far, I think I'll use these, at least.

Axes: all wounds continue to bleed, as the various bleeding wounds from different mechanics. Bonus to sunder against shields and armour, perhaps free sunder attempts on successful hits.

Claw weapons: these count as monk weapons. Add your unarmed damage to the weapon damage.

Crossbow: hip shot, make a shot at -5 as a swift action.

Double weapon: increased benefit from two-weapon defence. Can't think of much else, sadly. But these are weird weapons anyway.

Chains and flails: bonuses on disarm, maybe free disarm attempts on hits. Also, they ignore AC bonuses from parrying, which would have to be defined, but includes things such as defendind weapons, defensive fighting and two-weapon defence. Also the various boni from these feats.

Heavy blades: can all deal piercing or slashing damage. Get better cleaving, perhaps free cleave attempts on each critical hit.

Light blades: can all deal piercing or slashing damage. Get better at parrying. Give an initiative and feint bonus.

Maces, picks, hammers (I'm thinking about combining these): I'm thinking of a daze effect on a power attack. Also, these weapons ignore 1/2 your enemy's armour bonus, and perhaps also some AC.

Polearms and spears: after every AoO, make a free five foot step. Perhaps also better reach? Short haft abilities will also be included.


Bows I think are actually adequately covered with the numerous shooting feats around.

itastelikelove
2010-05-07, 03:21 AM
actually, putting scythes with picks makes sense, the way scythes are used (in the D&D-verse). They are typed as piercing weapons, so as piercing weapons with the point perpendicular to the shaft, they should be used with the same maneuver/skill set as picks. In the REAL WORLD, they are used for cutting down swathes of grain, and...actually they would probably work better for stabbing anyway. proper scything technique uses a very shallow slicing motion, so you would probably have to stab someone before you could cut them, anyway. On the whole probably not a great choice (in the real world), unless you're big on psychological warfare or symbolism.

Or you could have your town blacksmith turn the blade 90 degrees, and end up with a polearm with a backwards-curved blade. But that's not nearly so cool.

Eldan
2010-05-11, 06:52 AM
I've added weapon group expert feats. Feedback would be appreciated.
Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8384295#post8384295)

Once again, these are not meant to replace a better fighter class, but merely to give some hopefully useful tools for all melee classes.

Doc Roc
2010-05-11, 07:47 AM
I've been reluctant to bring it up, but War-marked has some multi-class feats that would let you use the tremendous and painful amount of balancing work we've already done.

itastelikelove
2010-05-13, 12:20 AM
It looks like this thread might be winding down a bit, but before it dies, there's one more thing I would like to do. In keeping with the original spirit of the thread, I would like to revise the great Manifesto itself, to better reflect the thoughts and expectations of the people here on the homebrew boards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How's it look? I want it to be short and quick, so probably fewer than 20 questions (despite everyone's apparent love for that number of questions, that seems a bit much for a forum survey), but I want to cover all the big issues. Is it confusing at any point? Did I miss anything important?

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

Let's give it a few days.

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

Ashtagon
2010-05-13, 01:16 AM
(Disclaimer: all this is imho)

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

The fighter is the quintessential armoured warrior. Ranged combat is best left to the ranger and his non-magical variant the scout. Light melee warriors are best left to rogues and swashbucklers. Equipment-free melee types are monks.

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

In 4e terms, he is primarily a melee defender. The nature of most combat feats being what they are, he can very easily branch out into the striker role, and boosting the defence of his allies (such as using his shield to aid an adjacent ally) logically counts as the leader role, so he can do that a bit. Any of these could be developed further depending on his choice of class options and feats.

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

draw attacks should be based on adjusted hit probabilities rather than compulsions or "mind control". Preventing movement sounds good. Extra movement should be circumstantial, such as rushing to intercept an enemy, swapping position with an ally, moving to take a hit or use your shield to aid an ally, etc. A flat bonus to speed isn't in-theme for a heavily armoured guy.

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

Better saves. No so much as a flat bonus, but a re-roll pool, possibly a second attempt one round later, and so on. A pool of limited uses, rather than a constant permanent bonus.

Maybe something like: Once per day per fighter class level, you may re-roll a saving throw. You can use a re-roll as a free action action time a save is required. If a save is failed and it has an ongoing effect, you may use a re-roll no more than once per round as a swift action, in order to attempt to end the effect.

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

What role should any class occupy? Only the rogue seems to be specifically marked as a "skill monkey", with the cleric taking the healer role, and bards/sorcerers as the face.

A fighter's non-combat skills could focus on weapon/armour crafting, combat engineer (nb. not traps) and siege weaponry, military history, tactics, and strategy, or guard/watchman duties.

Yes, that means they should get Spot/Listen as class skills.

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

Any weapon and armour at a basic level. He should be able to specialise using weapon groups later on. His armour-based special abilities should work with any armour, but be at their best when used with heavier armours.

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

I'd rather fighters just use the same number feats every other class uses, feats be re-calibrated so that "combat" feats are on a par with the rest, and re-frame the fighter-only feats as part of a menu of fighter class abilities that can be chosen.

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

Desirable. Resource management is a key component for every class except fighter in the SRD. No reason fighters should be excused.

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

Entirely mundane.

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

Spellcasters are broken. No one should be tier 1, and possibly not tier 2 either.

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

Spellcaster fixing is a separate project, but a necessary one.

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

Anything that is a save or die or a save or suck. But this is an issue for a spellcaster fix, not so much a fighter fix.

Apalala
2010-05-13, 02:26 AM
Rather than comment on the survey, I'd rather just comment on it.

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

The fighter should be the fighting man. An expert at fighting both monsters and men. The wizard devotes himself to being a master of magic, but the fighter spends an equal amount of devotion in learning how to make things dead. As such, he should be very good at this.

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

In 4e terms, the fighter is a striker and defender. He should be dealing plenty of damage--enough to kill a monster in about the same time it would take the monster to kill him--and he should be plenty sturdy.

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

The fighter can already deal out quite decent damage, and it doesn't want to step on the rogue's toes. It could probably use a boost to damage, but it's not at all vital. Sturdiness on the other hand is. It's easy enough to boost AC--though a fighter, or any other class for that matter, really shouldn't have to rely on magic to avoid a monster's blow--but the fighter has piss poor saves. I do think a simple flat bonus is in order, specifically being able to choose a second good save, but it's not enough. A fighter should not be taken out of the fight till he drops dead. A single failed save should not take the fighter out of the fight. As for marking and the rest, the domain of feats.

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

More of a flaw inherent within the system. Casting defensively is the most obvious problem, though a single feat--mage slayer--does much to alleviate that. If you make the fighter sturdier, as stated earlier, then it should be okay.

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

Strongman and expert, though a limited expert compared to the rogue. Two skillpoints is just insulting, and the skill list really needs to be opened up.

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

I could see a fighter class feature where he gains an inherent AC bonus that doesn't stack with armor, but the fighter generally should be wearing armor. He's not a monk, after all. Again, more of an issue with the system though. As for weapons, he should be good with most weapons, and have the option to master a few. Again, domain of feats.

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

Big role. The fighter should be highly versatile and feats should allow that. Feats should give the fighter options and they should scale with level.

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

Per day aren't so hot, but definitely per encounter. If a resource is limited, you get to make it shinier than something that can be used over and over. Shiny things are fun. People like fun.

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

Neither. Fighter shouldn't be supernatural or mundane. He should be extraordinary. If the mundane fighter is fully capable of slaying monsters--to the point that he can shrug off a dragon's breath and slice off a giant's leg--he should be flashy about it. A high level fighter should be able to do more than roll with higher numbers than a low level fighter.

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

No. Though it would be easy enough to put the fighter in the same tier as spellcasters, the point is to have a fun game. Rather than set a benchmark of the high level casters, we should look towards the monsters a fighter will be facing down at the later levels. His abilities should make it so that he's always relevant, but not so great that he can steamroll everything by himself without risk. Though...high level dnd is pretty problematic, and making it playable is far beyond the scope of fixing the fighter.

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

People will want to play fighters to fit a concept and have fun. He should be able to do things better than a spellcaster, much better.

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

Polymorph and summoning spells are the most obvious ones to me.

itastelikelove
2010-05-13, 02:39 AM
(Disclaimer: all this is imho)

Which is exactly what I want. :smallsmile:

What I didn't want was people taking the time to fill out the survey before I finished any important edits. :smallamused:

Oh well, let's just run with it, I guess. Any other additional topics/etc. can be tacked on to the end, or posted separately. It'll be a little less organized, but it should work out fine.

Thanks for the answers, Ashtagon! I know you disagree with most of the people on this thread (specifically about the stuff you wrote for #1), but that's important feedback as well. Now I can officially state that there is contention on the point of the Fighter's preferred available combat roles/fighting styles. :smallwink:


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

Anything that is a save or die or a save or suck. But this is an issue for a spellcaster fix, not so much a fighter fix.

The purpose of this question was to highlight spells whose existence should be accounted for when building a Fighter revision. Does that one Cleric spell increase BAB and Str? Then we need a fighter that can do things better even with an equal BAB and lower Str. Does that third level Wizard spell make it impossible for your melee defender/controller build to do his job? Let's make sure we can do something about that. I'm not looking for specific abilities or solutions - just a list of things that we should keep in mind.

And yes, a caster fix would be more effective. But it's more work, and harder for your average DM to implement, than a variant class. We should assume that at least the PHB spells are going to be in use, so we should at least know which ones we need to keep an eye out for. It's the kind of thing a Fighter needs to know, living in a magical world.

Let me know if I should reword that question. Suggestions always appreciated.

DracoDei
2010-05-14, 01:18 AM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.

Sorry, I never was good at "short and sweet summary".

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

Striker by default definitely, all others available based on build.

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

Extra damage/attacks, and staying power to stick around long enough to USE them. Everything else should vary by build.

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

None in particular, if there is a problem it means that the fighter's caster allies didn't buff him properly... I guess anything that synergizes well with spellcasting, or spellcasting that synergizes well with a fighter (like True Haste) helps with that.

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

None necessarily. Spot/Listen wouldn't hurt, and Low Search/Disable DC traps could be good (but good attack rolls/save DCs)... the sort of thing that helps in fortifying a position for a pitched battle, where if an attacker slows down enough to look for traps, let alone disarm them, then the trap has already accomplished its goal.

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

Everything available by build.

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

They are already in existence, I say keep them... can't hurt.

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

Not desirable. Maybe acceptable, but I would prefer to avoid them. That is other classes schtick.
9.Do Fighters need supernatural abilities in order to cope with spellcasters, or should they be entirely mundane?

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

The way the tier system is defined, a fighter can not and should not be on the same tier as full spellcasters. Spellcasters work by changing the rules, fighters work by being very good within the default rules, and, to a certain extent, no matter how the rules change. The fighter stays relevant in clashes of magic because he has a great powerlevel BEFORE he gets buffed...

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

Already included. There is a certain mindset that doesn't really care that the wizard did most of the work from a certain perspective. As for the strategizing about how to combine the raw and constant power of the fighter with the nigh-infinite adaptability of a caster, that should always be a team effort, so the mere fact that the fighter is the target, rather than the caster... he gets all the fun of actually DELIVERING the smack-down that the caster sets up.

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

I hear Divine Power needs to go... basically whatever makes the cleric into the Clericzilla (except for the atomic breath... Flame Strike and Chaos Hammer should be just fine).

On a similar note, I suggest that wildshape grant MORE abilities and LESS hit-dice. The Druid should still count as their natural HD for purposes of sleep and such of course, but I want to see more turning into spiders to drop on enemies or set up webbing for battle-field control, bats for scouting, and, my favorite skunks for disabling... less RAWR-Dire-Bear.

As for what to add, basically, I would like to see more spells that scream "don't cast this on yourself". Maybe a higher level (As in... like 7th or something like that) version of Bear's Endurance/Bull's Strength that grants an enhancement bonus equal to what the score of the target would be WITHOUT any magic (so rolled stat + racial + level up bonuses). So if you started with a 16 dexterity and boosted it at levels 4 and 8, then you would get a +18 to dexterity for the duration of that spell.

nonsi
2010-05-14, 07:26 AM
Beautiful analysis, Apalala.
I agree with most everything you said, except for one thing that repeated several times: “the domain of feats”.

Here’s how I envisioned the solution before I formed my latest version:

The class features would serve for things that would benefit all fighter roles, regardless of sub-concept (see below):
- Excelling with a variety of selected weapons.
- Lasting power – a lot of it
- High combat readiness
- The upper hand at opposed rolls
- Action economy tools
- Dynamic combat options
- Tactical combat where one waits for the enemy to make a move and exploit the opportunities that arise by it (whatever “it” will be).

I also see the fighter-fix as the pinnacle of class customization, therefore it should have several custom matrix frames that would define the general direction it is heading. The more typical matrix frames that come to mind are: ironclad foot soldier, mounted combatant, savage/primitive tribesman and unfettered skillful warrior. Each has the option of trading tactical combat for a deeper honing of his devotion: army commander, cavalier, hunter-stalker and daredevil – respectively.
(I’m open for more ideas on this one, within the same mindset).

Bonus feats and skills would be reserved for further customization, after the selection of the specific matrix frame has been made.


Other important issues that can’t be tied to the class itself:
- High battlefield Mobility – BAB related.
- Improving existing combat options to be simpler (for a more fun combat flow) and to favor high BAB (e.g. Feint).
- More combat options that were never defined (melee deflection, pulling punches, holding a knife to someone’s throat, shield another, play dead etc).
- The ability to do more with magical barriers than sticking your finger up your ass waiting for someone else to rescue you.

Ashtagon
2010-05-14, 10:31 AM
It's interesting that no one else agrees with my survey response on what a "fighter" should be. To be sure, no one who has posted a response seems to have agreed with each other either, so I'm hardly an outlier in that respect.

It does make me wonder though, if there is room in a typical party for the class concept outlined by my response.

itastelikelove
2010-05-14, 12:03 PM
It's interesting that no one else agrees with my survey response on what a "fighter" should be. To be sure, no one who has posted a response seems to have agreed with each other either, so I'm hardly an outlier in that respect.

It does make me wonder though, if there is room in a typical party for the class concept outlined by my response.

A heavy armor/weapon melee striker/defender? Personally, I think that's what most fighters should be (albeit with some controller-type abilities at hand, since they would mesh well with the defender role). The non-magical defender/controller niche is pretty wide open, and the Fighter is a perfect candidate to fill it, with their heavy armor proficiency and thematic emphasis on skill and training. The only (significant) point where I disagree with you (and some others that I've seen, even if most of them haven't posted survey answers yet) is that I think the class should allow you to make builds that fit other combat roles as well, even if one role is the most obvious choice.

But there has been more variation than I expected in people's answers to #1 and #2, and so far no one's answers have agreed exactly with anyone else's. I'll be interested to see what happens if more people respond.

I'll fill out the survey myself, either later today or sometime tomorrow.

itastelikelove
2010-05-14, 12:11 PM
Beautiful analysis, Apalala.
I agree with most everything you said, except for one thing that repeated several times: “the domain of feats”.

Even if you mostly agree with Apalala's responses, would you mind filling out a survey of your own? It shouldn't take long, and it will make it easier to compare where you agree or disagree with everyone else.

itastelikelove
2010-05-14, 12:42 PM
Here are a couple of extra questions that address common complaints about the Fighter class.

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

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

Ashtagon
2010-05-14, 12:56 PM
13. Should a Fighter be dependent on his equipment to function properly? Should a disarmed Fighter, or one stripped of his possessions when taken prisoner, or one who didn't bring along the right kind of weapon be useless? Should it be necessary for Fighters to spend all of their money on basic magic items (weapons, armor, stat-boosters, etc.) in order to stay relevant at higher levels?

A fighter without his weapons and armour is largely de-clawed, and I don't see any way around this without stepping on the monk's territory. Otoh, since he should have decent Craft skills, he should be able to improvise something fairly quickly given suitable raw materials, even without a forge/workshop to make high-quality gear.

However, he shouldn't be dependent on having the "right" weapon. While a fighter should be able to be an expert in a given weapon family, he should still be competent with any weapon.

A sword and board fighter, stuck on a deserted island, should be able to improvise a spear from bamboo shoots, and be good at it. Once he kills an animal, he should be able to make a crude bone knife, which he can use to skin the animal and make some crude leather armour from. And he'll know how to use that spear and that armour, even if it isn't his first choice of gear.

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

The problem with class design present is that everyone wants to be a striker, and there is a grudging acceptance that someone has to be the healbot, forcing someone to be a leader. And the wizard holds a monopoly on the controller role. With the core rules, it's basically impossible to be a defender anyway, even if someone wanted to.

A different question worth asking is, "How can we make spellcasters dependent on fighter allies?" Having fighters occupy that defender role matches many tropes, as well as answers that flipped question. Its interesting to note that the only classes that can do a one-class party happen to occupy leader or controller roles as their primary, with flexibility through spells to do some of the defender combat role.

nonsi
2010-05-14, 02:31 PM
It does make me wonder though, if there is room in a typical party for the class concept outlined by my response.

It seems to me that what you see as a class, others see as a specific career that class could take.
You just bind it within a narrower perimeter than most others.

Ashtagon
2010-05-14, 04:29 PM
It seems to me that what you see as a class, others see as a specific career that class could take.
You just bind it within a narrower perimeter than most others.

I think I did justify why I was focusing on the fighter as a heavy armour melee guy. The other existing classes are far more suitable out of the box if you want to play a ranged warrior unarmed warrior, or light warrior. Yes, it is possible to use the SRD fighter in those roles, but other classes already to them better than the fighter does (although the splatbooks change this a bit).

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-14, 08:09 PM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.

A Fighter is any character - melee or ranged - denoted by a focus on combat or warfare and use of weapons. The class itself should likely refer to a highly trained character who learns weaponry as his career (as opposed to, say, a barbarian).


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

Versitility leads directly into power, but I believe that the Fighter, ideally, should find some manner of balancing out Striker and Defender. He hits things, and prevents others from being hit. Of course, archers and their ilk are more Striker, and sword-and-boarders are more Defender, but feats should take care of that.


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

Fighters need the ability to move freely through the battlefield, reach distant opponents with attacks, interrupt actions (i.e. kicks, pommel smashes), increase their AC vs. touch attacks, gain damage and/or energy resistance, pierce magical protections, easily repair or create magical arms & armor, and various and sundry other things.


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

Well...see above, really. These abilities should not be feats. I cannot stress it enough - feats are not a fix to the problem! Skills may need to be revised, combat systems are probably going to be changed, but not another thrice-be-damned feat-based fix!


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

Tactician, quartermaster, equipment specialist, woodsman...essentially, anything that can be trained into them, really. Give 'em Track as a bonus feat option. Let 'em repair magical items. Appraise as a class skill (vikings were cunning merchants as well as deadly warriors), even some Knowledges might be handy. Think of something, damnit.


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

Warriors are specialists - this is a simple fact of life. A fighter's build should specialize, but the Fighter should not be penalized for choosing a particular speciality. All weapons are deadly, in trained hands.


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

FEATS ARE NOT A FIX.

[-quote]8.Are limited use (per day, per encounter, etc.) abilities desirable? Acceptable? Unacceptable?[/quote]

Per encounter I can potentially see, though most abilities or attacks are more realistically per round. At per day and above, it becomes difficult to justify in fluff terms.


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

The line between supernatural and mundane is very blurry in D&D, and I could fully support and get behind a fighter who can awaken greater abilities in his magical weapons, eke every ounce out of a potion, practices "hedge magic", or even forges their own magical equipment. Magic does not make someone not a warrior any longer, and the fact of the matter is, even in literature, mundane guys don't last in high-magic worlds. Give 'em a bone, people, or we might as well call 'em an NPC class and replace 'em with Warblade.


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

Not really possible if one wants to stay true to the concept, but frankly, full casters need a serious nerf. A tier or two below (wherever your group considers "balanced" to lie) is appropriate.


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

Non-feat options, cool combat abilities (players will forgive an ability ANYTHING if its name sounds cool enough), vivid descriptions, an honest ability to contribute to a party, and more specific flavor are all great ideas.


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

This list is...very long. In essence, anything mind-affecting screws a Fighter right in the butt - glittedust, charm, suggestion, feeblemind, et cetera. If it slows or halts movements or actions, it screws the Fighter. If it boosts AC, it probably hurts the Fighter. Shapeshifting powers (and divine power) render fighters obsolete, and each and every Fighter is dependant on his pet wizard or cleric for buffs of all kinds.


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

Every warrior tradition has the ability to fight unarmed; Improved Unarmed strike as a free feat would not be a bad idea. Likewise, streamlining the grapple rules. Most of my suggestions above, if implemented, should make a naked fighter more dangerous than he is today, though frankly, just about any character starts getting boned once the equipment comes off. Divine foci - gone. Spell components - gone. Sneak attack? Maybe, but you probably wish. You see my point.


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

This one's tricky - yes, they should be dependant on having allies, but so should everyone else. These allies needn't necessarily be spellcasters. The ideal adventuring party is a team, not a Shonen Jump manga.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-14, 09:12 PM
A heavy armor/weapon melee striker/defender? Personally, I think that's what most fighters should be (albeit with some controller-type abilities at hand, since they would mesh well with the defender role). The non-magical defender/controller niche is pretty wide open, and the Fighter is a perfect candidate to fill it, with their heavy armor proficiency and thematic emphasis on skill and training. The only (significant) point where I disagree with you (and some others that I've seen, even if most of them haven't posted survey answers yet) is that I think the class should allow you to make builds that fit other combat roles as well, even if one role is the most obvious choice.

But there has been more variation than I expected in people's answers to #1 and #2, and so far no one's answers have agreed exactly with anyone else's. I'll be interested to see what happens if more people respond.

I'll fill out the survey myself, either later today or sometime tomorrow.
Working on that idea, the ability to increase mundane defenses and mundane ofenses should be part of a fighter's class features. The Pathfinder fighter does it well with it's weapon and armor training, and weapon groups. They should make the better off gear than others classes.
After that, it's a matter of having good feats to have the other concepts. Leadership, controlling, and the likes, would work better as feats/chains, and/or PrCs, since they are more optional things. If I make a battle-hardened warrior that waddles into battle to deal with mobs, hold back monsters, and grit his teeth shruging off spells, I'm not interested in having abilities to lead armies, or whatever. If someone puts it into the class, it'll only be wasted features for a lot of people. Then, if I decide to play a leader/crusader/warlord type, then I'll want these abilities. Feats and PrCs work fine for it. If I want a skirmisher type, with light armor, fast movement, and the likes, it should be doable, but not integral part of the fighter's class features.

nonsi
2010-05-15, 10:56 AM
Okay, my turn.



1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.
A highly customizable weapons’ & combat specialist, able to fill the role of any western RL/folklore warrior.


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


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


4.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to fight effectively against spellcasters?
Plenty.
Since mundane abilities can accomplish only so much, Mr. Fighter-Fix will require a large array of them, to be able to cope with a wide variety of challenges.


5.What role should the Fighter occupy outside of combat?
This will vary according to the general direction a player will choose, but there are some that should be an open option to all: bodyguard, craftsman, diplomat, explorer, medic, tactician.


6.Should a Fighter be effective with any weapon or armor or lack thereof? If not, should it be limited by the nature of the class, or by the specifics of each individual build/combat role?
Any armor and weapons combo the player envisions his character to be using.
The various proficiencies should be direction+build dependant.


7.What role should Feats play in a Fighter revision? Are they sufficient? Necessary but not sufficient? Completely unnecessary?
A significant one.
Fighters are known to be one/two-trick ponies. That’s because stat-boosting feats are mandatory for them to be worth a damn – and stat-boosters don’t amount to option.
- For mobility, you need the Spring Attack tree
- For imposing conditions, you need weapon-style feats
- For some extra lasting power, you need combat-form feats.
- To be half-reasonably versatile, you need tactical feats.
And that’s before we’re talking about primary combat style (2W/2H/range/S&B/reach) – and you can’t do with only one style.


8.Are limited use (per day, per encounter, etc.) abilities desirable? Acceptable? Unacceptable?
I’m not sure that X uses are the best way to go, but you should have some sort of exhaustible quota of tricks per encounter.


9.Do Fighters need supernatural abilities in order to cope with spellcasters, or should they be entirely mundane?
Absolutely no Su/Sp abilities.
You’ll miss the whole point of what a warrior is.
A good Fighter-Fix should have an array of flashy extraordinary abilities that will synergize nicely to give it battlefield options.


10.Should a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters? Can a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters?
No and no – and I’m okay with that. After all, they play within the laws of reality, not break or bend them.


11.If a Fighter is in a lower tier than full spellcasters, is there another way to entice players to be Fighters?
Make it highly customizable in-build and as versatile as you can manage in-game.
Basically, the answer to verse #3 provides the combat aspect. Skills and skill-feats of various sorts will provide the out-of-combat motivations.


12.What are some of the spells that most strongly affect the viability of the Fighter class? These can be spells that eliminate the Fighter from combat, are necessary for a Fighter to be viable, or make the Fighter obsolete by empowering casters.
- Divine Power (=Clericzilla) just has to go.
- Gate (the summoning option) must also say bye bye.
- The Holly Word family also has to go, unless you rule out that caster level can under no circumstances exceed HD.


13. Should a Fighter be dependent on his equipment to function properly? Should a disarmed Fighter, or one stripped of his possessions when taken prisoner, or one who didn't bring along the right kind of weapon be useless? Should it be necessary for Fighters to spend all of their money on basic magic items (weapons, armor, stat-boosters, etc.) in order to stay relevant at higher levels?
A disarmed fighter can grapple when it’s relevant.
When not – he can attempt to locate a weapon or disarm someone with the relevant penalties (sometimes **** happens).
Basically, several Ghost-Touch weapons & armors make a huge difference. Several items that boost mobility magically are also a huge boon. Everything else is luxury.


14. Should a Fighter be dependent on having spellcaster allies? There are several classes that you can make an entire party out of. Should a party of nothing but Fighters be viable?
Buffs, protection, recovery... magic is essential for long-term survival.
And no – a party made exclusively of fighters shouldn’t be viable. Hell, a party made exclusively of [I don’t give a damn what] shouldn’t be viable. Magical gear plays too big a role in 3e. Cut it down drastically and you bring back teamwork.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-15, 11:11 AM
9.Do Fighters need supernatural abilities in order to cope with spellcasters, or should they be entirely mundane?
Absolutely no Su/Sp abilities.
You’ll miss the whole point of what a warrior is.
A good Fighter-Fix should have an array of flashy extraordinary abilities that will synergize nicely to give it battlefield options.

Okay. This is the last time I'm going to read this without commenting.

In a world where rogues can dodge meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms with no cover, monks can survive falls thousands of feet straight down, rangers can hide, in a desert, buck-ass naked and painted red with nothing to hide behind and not be seen, why in the nine flaming hells can't fighters get nice things?

I mean, honestly. Why the hell is the community so attached to the idea of playing what is, in a magical world, a frakking cripple?

nonsi
2010-05-15, 11:43 AM
Okay. This is the last time I'm going to read this without commenting.

In a world where rogues can dodge meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms with no cover, monks can survive falls thousands of feet straight down, rangers can hide, in a desert, buck-ass naked and painted red with nothing to hide behind and not be seen, why in the nine flaming hells can't fighters get nice things?

I mean, honestly. Why the hell is the community so attached to the idea of playing what is, in a magical world, a frakking cripple?
You're barging into an open door.
1. Evasion, Mettle & HiPS are Ex.
2. When was the last time you took a glimpse at my Warrior class (putting my rules revision aside, for argument's sake) ?

Zeful
2010-05-15, 01:25 PM
Okay. This is the last time I'm going to read this without commenting.

In a world where rogues can dodge meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms with no cover, monks can survive falls thousands of feet straight down, rangers can hide, in a desert, buck-ass naked and painted red with nothing to hide behind and not be seen, why in the nine flaming hells can't fighters get nice things?

I mean, honestly. Why the hell is the community so attached to the idea of playing what is, in a magical world, a frakking cripple?

Actually having Supernatural and Spell Like Abilities, does kinda miss the point of the many archetypal fighters. It was mostly skill that kept them alive/killed things. Hercules only had the advantage of being born a God, later being depowered to a mortal with tremendous strength (which would be a Racial modifier to strength). Some had magic weapons, but didn't have any abilities that resemble magic (like Su and Sp abilities do).

However, a Lack of Su and Sp abilities does not cripple a character, it's the lack of abilities period. Giving the fighter powerful Ex abilities actually fit a broader archetype then an equivalent Su ability.

Eldan
2010-05-15, 01:31 PM
Yes, actually, Ex abilities have a few advantages over Su and Sp abilities (usual power levels adside), like use in an AMF. A fighter should not use half his power when he walks into a dead magic zone.

See, not having magic is only an issue when magic is the only powerful force. Currently, magic, psy, shadow magic, binding, incarnum and the sublime way are all powerful and versatile forces. Martial skill isn't.

Ashtagon
2010-05-15, 02:16 PM
Okay. This is the last time I'm going to read this without commenting.

In a world where rogues can dodge meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms with no cover, monks can survive falls thousands of feet straight down, rangers can hide, in a desert, buck-ass naked and painted red with nothing to hide behind and not be seen, why in the nine flaming hells can't fighters get nice things?

I mean, honestly. Why the hell is the community so attached to the idea of playing what is, in a magical world, a frakking cripple?

My soldier class can re-roll his saving throws plenty of times, allowing him to shake off any effect (even flesh to stone) that doesn't actually kill him.

Admittedly, he doesn't have the rogue's ability to take no damage at all on a successful Reflex save, although I'm tempted to add that in as a high-level feat.

Oslecamo
2010-05-15, 04:41 PM
See, not having magic is only an issue when magic is the only powerful force. Currently, magic, psy, shadow magic, binding, incarnum and the sublime way are all powerful and versatile forces. Martial skill isn't.

Shaddow magic is actualy considered the worst "magic" out there and just better than truenaming.

Binding is quite versatile, but not really that powerfull, since you can only have a couple vestiges at the same time and the good abilities can't be spammed in a short time.

Sublime way is powerfull, but an optimized barbarbarian is just as strong, and they don't have as much versatility as people like to brag, as around 90% of the effects are basically "deal damage".

Factotum is technically martial skill, and he's probably stronger and more versatile than binding and shaddow magic and just as strong and more versatile than sublime way.

And then we get ubercharger barbarian that easily outdamages the sublime way, altough not that versatile.

Sorry, carry on. Just to point out that not every class is tied to a "system". The factotum has his own personal rules.

Plus, "martial skill" in the form of feats, BAB, and basic stat modifiers is shared by all classes. So either we need some bigger feats that demand big Bab and natural physical stats or for the fighter to have his own personal rules.

Eldan
2010-05-15, 04:48 PM
I didn't necessarily mean "powerful" as much as "versatile" and "fun to play". What I mean is that these systems can all produce a variety of effects which give them answers to a variety of different tactical situation. I admit that the Factotum is a different case, but an optimized Barbarian or Fighter tends to really only have one trick.

And of course the fighter needs a better system. Currently, Martial Skill is pretty much non-existent as it's own subsystem of the game. Base attack bonus is easy, and if they are willing to be that unoptimized, even a wizard could take most trip feats by level 20. The fighter needs something which is versatile, unique and decidedly martial in nature.

Oslecamo
2010-05-15, 05:45 PM
And of course the fighter needs a better system. Currently, Martial Skill is pretty much non-existent as it's own subsystem of the game. Base attack bonus is easy, and if they are willing to be that unoptimized, even a wizard could take most trip feats by level 20.

Well that's why I say we need bigger feats with pre-requisites that the fighter meets easily while everybody else would need to struggle. Like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132335), wich also includes an anti-warblade clause.




The fighter needs something which is versatile, unique and decidedly martial in nature.

Well, the problem is more with the last.

Magic, psionics, incarnum, pacts, are all 99,999% fantasy stuff.
Martial actualy exists in the world as much in fantasy, and we can't even agree how they work and worked in real life (like the eternal plate vs arrows discussions), let alone in fantasy.

You can't complain that charm monster isn't realistic because it doesn't exist in real life at all, but if you state that the fighter can shoot lasers from his eyes with enough martial skill a good deal of people will throw books at you.

Anyway, like someone mentioned tactical feats would be the way to go. Feats that grant you several options instead of one at a time. And then put a "fighter lvX only, warblades don't count" tag.

On my link above for example the fighter can get a feat that allows him to produce cheap easy to use poison with higher DCs than normal, allowing him to inflict status effects on the oponents while remaining martial.

UserShadow7989
2010-05-15, 08:42 PM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.

The Fighter should be whatever martial warrior the player wishes to create. Want to be the heavily armored guardian of the squishier party members? Sure thing. You want to shoot the wings off a fly from 50 yards? You can. Want to be the lightning fast spear user that shish-kabobs enemies before they figure out what's happening? Go get'em, tiger.


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

The Fighter should be adaptable to any role the player wants it to be, though a master of none unless they specifically built for that one role.


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

-Fghting style: Are you a quick moving and hard to hit fighter or a hard hitting and unstoppable one? Maybe focus on swift, powerful strikes in exchange for taking hits as well as a wet paper bag, or be an indomitable wall of speed and defense at the price of actually hitting something?

-Stances: Do you approach cautiously or charge in? Focus on protecting nearby allies or wade into the thick of it? Hold your ground or perform a fighting retreat?

-Preferred weapons: Will you stick to the Bow & Arrow and get bonus after bonus until you can perform absurdly difficult shots, or spread out to swords so you can defend yourself from people too close for comfort?

-Specializations: Do you like being outnumbered, fighting one on one, or ganging up on a single target? Do you enjoy playing David to the Dragon's Goliath, using superior size to overwhelm the little guy, or do you pick on people your own size? Fight manly men like yourself or step on spell-slinging sorcerers?


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

Honestly, spellcasters are too versatile to build a proper counter to. Higher saves, and the ability to perform a (penalized) save against spells that don't normally provide them would be a good start. Wall of Force and Solid Fog are still huge problems, but if you're willing to suspend disbelief enough a later ability could be to 'sheer force of will' your way through magical barriers.

Fighters using the bow or other ranged weapons could get the ability to knock a flying enemy dead out of the sky if they make a high enough attack roll, and users of melee weapons could get a leap attack of absurd range to get right back into their face. (Think the Final Fantsy's Dragoon's Jump.) While this seems ridiculous, consider what other characters are doing by level 10, 13, 17, and so on.


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

Physical tasks. Crafting/repairing/maintaining weapons, hunting, tracking, guarding, patrolling, breaking down doors and other barriers. Beefier fighters could do heavy lifting or carry loot/swag (in addition to whatever equipment they use).


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

Fighters should be competent in any situation, but vastly better when using their favored weapons or armor. A lot of general, small stat bonuses varying from build to build that are always there, with larger bonuses to attack rolls and DC that only exist with your chosen weapons/situations.


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

Feats are necessary but no where near sufficient. "Hey buddy, how about this? Instead of giving you the ability to rend the fabric of reality and make casualty your pretty little girlfriend like those spellcasters, we give you a nice +1 to weapons in your off hand. Deal?"

Bonuses should be larger on the whole, feats should scale with level, and Fighters should get a lot more of them. Of course, feats aren't enough on their own for a real fix. Better feats will certain HELP though.


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

Acceptable, but not really desirable. A lot of fictional works have super powerful ultimate techniques that take years to master, and whipping them out on a reliable basis is unlikely, but keep it to a minimum.


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

Mundane. The Fighter is the catch all for mundane weapon users of all shapes and sizes. If you want magic or supernatural, multi-class or just stick to a different class entirely.


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

No and no. As awesome as people like Hercules and the like were, they couldn't just cast Wish and say 'I win' or toss a color spray at a guy and say 'hope you save, punk'. Nor should they. Full casters are overpowered as is, and making every class overpowered just makes it harder for DMs to tailor challenges to the party. The Fighter should be about two tiers down. Someone that isn't completely overshadowed by the Wizards and Sorcerers of the world, but not earth rending monsters.


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

Yes. People who are fully aware of the tier difference still play Fighters over Wizards, simply because being the badass normal is fun. Wizards may be the ultimate in gameplay versatility, but there are vastly more ways to design a Fighter then a Wizard. When I say 'Wizard' we all think pasty guy in a robe who needs some exercise, or the devious looking adviser.

When I say 'Fighter' a thousand different images appear. The bulky but peaceful protecter, the sassy and swift swashbuckler, the foot soldier with nothing but his spear and magic helmet and a desire to serve his country, the bandit praying on villages with his brute force and number, the mentally lacking man who makes up for his weakness with a mastery of 12 different styles, and yes, the man clad in armor, carrying a sword in one hand and a shield in the other.


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

Force Cage, Force Wall, and Solid Fog are big offenders. There's zero a physical character can do in the face of them. Flight (or a giant crevice) render a Fighter helpless if they chose anything other then the Bow or Sling for their weapon. Stat buffs are very helpful for a Fighter, and is something they need if they're gonna keep up with Clericzilla or a Druid with an Animal Companion, Wild Shape, the ability that lets them cast in Wild Shape, and a taste for melee combat. As for those that obsolete Fighter, see the aforementioned Clericzilla/melee Druid and their preferred spells.


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

A Fighter should be halfway competent with any weapon (and even without), though vastly better with their favored arms. They should have the ability to improvise if they don't have a specific weapon available. E.g. a flying opponent requiring a Bow to fight reliably can instead be fought by throwing VERY large rocks and pieces of wood sharpened to a razor edge. It'd be much harder then a real Bow or Sling, but it'd give them something to do.

A Fighter should not have to spend every cent on magical equipment just to keep up, but I don't see any way to get around it entirely. Maybe class abilities that provides a bonus to Craft checks, and discounts on crafting or purchasing a weapon or item, or cheaper enchantments due to their familiarity with weaponry. ("You think that sword's worth *insert price tag here*?! I can spot at least five reasons why it's not worth half that just from a quick glance!")


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


It's been said before, but should be said again. A party of all ANYTHING shouldn't be viable. D&D is built around the concept that teams will cover for the weaknesses of others. A Fighter should be able to stand on his own two feat without having a spellcaster bail them out every 2 rounds, but shouldn't take down the BBEG all on his lonesome.

Bergor Terraf
2010-05-15, 10:22 PM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.


The fighter fights. He doesn't rage, pray to a god, casts spells or sneak around. His only focus is fighting and he should be the best at that.



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


Striker/Defender with a possibility of leader depending on build. Melee or range should both be available. The specific balance between striker and defender should depend on the build.



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


The defender side really needs help. A way to stop movement and a way to punish not paying attention to the fighter would help tremendouisly.



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


Ways to resist or at least lower the effects of save-or-die or save-or-suck spells.



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


Physical labour, equipment care/repair/creation, strategy, appraising, even some help with character interaction (physical combatant often try to read the bolanguage of their opponent, it wouldn't be to weird to give them sense motives)



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


A fighter should be competent with about everything and deadly with is chosen form of death dealing.



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


Completely unnecessary. Instead of making feats stronger or mking them act differently for fighters, we should just go all the way and give him true class ability.

The way things are now, every class has cake (class abilities) and frosting (feats). What is the cake of the fighter? More frosting! In this case, truly, the cake is a lie.



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


Acceptable on a per encounter basis. Or even abilities that need some rounds before becoming available again (it works for dragons, why not fighters?)



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


Mundane abilities (Ex)



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


No, and no. Full spellcaters should not be used as a balance point.



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


No need, players often want to play a concept (or role) rather then a class. If that concept doesn't fit the other class, they will play a fighter.



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


Any spell that enables a caster to completely replace a fighter and spells that makes him completely useless without to much effort.



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


A fighter should still be dangerous even without his equipment, but still be reduced in power. Magic item should be the "cherry on top". A fighter who specialize in combat with axes should be able to kill his opponent wether he weilds a +2 flaming axe or a mundane axe, the only difference being the time it took him to do it.



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


A fighter should be dependent on having a TEAM. anybody that can do things he cannot should be seeked and highly valued.

itastelikelove
2010-05-15, 10:35 PM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.

A Fighter is a warrior who is trained extensively in the ways of physical combat, and at higher levels, his skill is second to none. He may not be the strongest, or the fastest, and he has no magic of his own to back himself up, but when it comes to pure fighting, the Fighter does it best.

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

I think that a Fighter should be able to assume nearly any non-magical role in combat. It's all a matter of training. The controller and defender roles are by far the most open, however. There are few classes that can perform those roles, and they suit the theme of the Fighter class very well, so I don't mind seeing fixes that focus on those roles, as long as there are options available for other builds. Ideally, I would like to see individual Fighters be able to function well in at least two roles. They don't have as many options outside of combat, so they should have more options in combat.

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

Fighters can do some decent damage by default, so the Striker role is covered. Defending requires the ability to draw enemies' attacks away from allies, and possibly restrict or prevent enemies' movement and attacks. Controlling requires abilities to negatively affect the status of enemies, and control movement and positioning on the battlefield. Leadership abilities would probably rely mostly on morale or teamwork effects to grant bonuses or actions, or similar.

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

The Fighter will need to have abilities that function at range, especially against flying opponents. The Fighter will need better defenses against spells that can remove him completely from combat. The Fighter will need a method to bypass magical barriers or other effects that can prevent him from reaching his target with any of his abilities.

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

This is kind of a tough one. A Fighter fights. That's what they do. But they are good at training, and should probably be able to train in non-combat abilities as well. On the whole, I think that a Fighter should have fewer non-combat options than any other class (although still more than they currently have). A better skill list (and more skill points) should just about do it, although a couple of other options would be nice too. Especially things like building fortifications or setting up ambushes, things that create a tactical advantage if the fighter is given time to prepare.

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

The Fighter class's ability to function should not depend on using specific types of weapon, although individual builds may benefit from using equipment appropriate to their combat style. I don't have any problem with a Fighter specializing as an unarmed brawler, because a monk will do it differently.

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

I don't think that feats alone are sufficient to fix the Fighter class. They could come close, but feats (in general) aren't powerful enough or exclusive enough. Unless you make them powerful and exclusive, in which case you just made alternate class features. Take 'em or leave 'em, but they're not enough on their own.

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

I dislike the x/time mechanic for Fighters. If I can do it once, I should be able to do it again. Unless it's extremely taxing, and then I should end up fatigued...in which case I can do it again once that gets fixed. Other acceptable limitations are: 1/target/encounter (either they get wise to your tricks, or the damage is done and can't be compounded further), 1/round (although making it take a standard action makes more sense to me), or 1/situation (one AoO per action, one reroll per save, etc.)

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

No (Sp) abilities. Skeptical about (Su) abilities - if I see one that's good enough, I could accept it, but I think there's enough existing precedent that pretty much everything a Fighter needs to do could be justified by their three (archetypal) strengths: Skill, Prowess, and Willpower.

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

I think that spells pretty well exclude non-casters from Tier 1, but I think a Tier 2 Fighter class could be built that could pretty nearly dominate any in-combat situation, as long as we don't mind stretching the limits just a little. Not that that's what everyone wants. Just that it should be possible. I think Tier 3 or 4 is probably about what most people want/should try for.

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

I think playing a highly effective melee defender/controller would be quite a lot of fun. Combat is such a huge part of D&D that a class that is fun in combat is a fun class to play. As long as there is always a way for the class to contribute in combat, and they are (almost) never forced to sit out for entire battles, it will be worth playing. Incidentally, I think it would be hilariously fun if the Fighter could be made into a class that is SUCH a pain in the arse to ALMOST every other class (and more so to casters) that it's almost necessary to have a Fighter in your party to let your allies function properly when facing enemy Fighters. Again, probably not what everyone wants all the time...but damn that would be fun.

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

Fighters are pretty easily eliminated by mind-affecting and force-effect spells, and casters can negate any threat posed by a Fighter by Flying or Teleporting. Polymorph spells, Divine Power, and the like can render the Fighter obsolete. Buffing and warding spells, and effects like Fly and Teleport and Freedom of Movement are necessary for Fighters to keep up with casters at higher levels.

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

Some weapon enchantments may be necessary (can't think of any good (Ex) abilities that would grant Ghost Touch...although normal magic items still have a chance to hit incorporeal enemies, so I guess only a basic enhancement bonus is necessary). A Fighter without his equipment should be weakened (except for unarmed brawlers...who should probably be weaker the rest of the time), but should still have enough class abilities to be useful.

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

If a bunch of guys in dresses with d4 hit dice can survive without any other companions, surely a group of Fighters should be able to. Well, maybe not. But I think they should be able to handle many situations, and almost any combat situation. Even if that doesn't work out, I think Fighters (and all of the other classes) should be powerful enough to make it so that no single-class party is viable (in combat, at least).

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-20, 03:48 PM
My point, folks, is that all those "nonmagical abilities" (slowfall, evasion, Hide in Plain Sight) rape the laws of physics just as surely as if they'd been labelled (Su) instead of (Ex). Fighters without equally nice things are an NPC class. For that matter, I forbid my players to take Ranger levels, as I'm uninterested in sheperding a bunch of cripples through my campaign world >.>

Folks, compared to magic, martial skill is, as of this moment, a backwards practice reserved for the hopelessly naive. Why become a Fighter, or a barbarian, or whatever in the D&D universe when you can reach real power through any number of other careers? If martial skill wants to compete, it's going to need magical backup.

After all, even the gods had magic to back them up. Where would Thor be without Mjolnir? Apollo without his bow? Shango, deprived of his drums, is no longer the thunderer. You don't have to look at the divinities either - Arthur would be dead many times over without his enchanted belt (let's not forget Excalibur). If a person is mundane, his tools cannot be, and, let's face it, gear-dependancy is Bad Game Design.

Oh, and as for your warrior class, I found it rather uninspired and, frankly, annoying. Another ineffectual fix. Yawn. I tried it in one of my games, mind, with the intrepid player (Emerald_Wrath) who always serves as my guinea pig. The massacre which followed is not really worthy of description. Let us state only that his character was humbled by a sorcerer half his level.

DracoDei
2010-05-20, 07:46 PM
I am going to nit-pick a bit here... I am good at it(although hampered by the fact that I am not reading the thread closely), and it aids the thread towards clear thinking I think. Don't take it as detracting from your points. If I thought they were stupid I would be ripping them apart or ignoring them.

Folks, compared to magic, martial skill is, as of this moment, a backwards practice reserved for the hopelessly naive. Why become a Fighter, or a barbarian, or whatever in the D&D universe when you can reach real power through any number of other careers?
You have a good point, but I don't know if your logic about in-game stuff holds. AFAIK Magic is either inborn, gotten through risky sources, or requires education (tell me if this makes sense once you start adding splat-books). Let me take those one at a time:
1.) Inborn: Very few people have the genes (sorcerer), or the right specific personality (Bard).
2.) Risky Sources(Warlock, Binder): If most of the people who end up Fighters are law-enforcement or soldiers, then putting that much risk on it seriously dampens the recruiting, and/or makes conscription even more odious.
3.) Education: Beyond basic literacy, this is the domain of the wealthy in most D&D settings. It is also time-consuming and requires expensive materials, or intense personal attention before you even have a really good grasp of the skill-level of the student. Spells in a spellbook are so complicated that even experts can't perform them properly without said references. That, plus the fact that Wizard and Cleric are "complex" implies that the idea of everyone taking them up has about as much point as asking why everyone doesn't have a PhD IRL.


If martial skill wants to compete, it's going to need magical backup.
By your own words it seems like merely "physics defying" will do, rather than "magical" as the game defines it. Personally, I don't mind a martial class that breaks the laws of physics.


After all, even the gods had magic to back them up. Where would Thor be without Mjolnir? Apollo without his bow? Shango, deprived of his drums, is no longer the thunderer. You don't have to look at the divinities either - Arthur would be dead many times over without his enchanted belt (let's not forget Excalibur). If a person is mundane, his tools cannot be, and, let's face it, gear-dependency is Bad Game Design.
Two major things:
-Those are all gear, rather than spell-abilities, so what you seem to be saying is that one can't possibly have good game design while remaining true to mythological feel. Is that true, or am I missing something?
-Hercules(yes, he had the lion's skin but remember how he got it in the first place), Coyote, and I rather imagine that even without the Aegis that Athena could pick up a random sword in one hand, and a torch in the other and completely school the Hydra (and if you give her a month to whip some peasants into shape, they could take on an army of trained soldiers twice their size due simply to her INT and WIS scores plus appropriate skill-ranks).


Comparatively minor note:
Never seen anyone complain too much about spell-books. So to be a bit more precise, I think what you mean is that EXPENSIVE (which spellbooks ARE... until about level 3 or 4) gear dependency.








On a totally different and belated note: I have never played a character whose major CONCEPT was strongly dependent on being a Striker. Thus I have to disagree with whoever said "everyone wants to play the striker". Maybe most people do, but my "Real Man" side is actually pretty weak I think. My dominate type is "Brain", and for that I can use almost anything BUT a Striker, that ranger I mentioned? The GM let me dump Animal Empathy to add some Knowledge skills to his class list (Nature, Dungeoneering, The Planes, etc), basically if you named it, and it didn't happen to be an undead(his one real weak point in his studies) he could tell you its capabilities, tactics, etc. I got bored because the GM never cranked up the ELs to make it important whether I did that. I never seem to get the chance to really BE a brain in a way that matters to the campaigns I am in as far as party survival goes. I want to play Batman (as in the Dark Knight of many decades' history, not necessarily a caster) with or without any of his Bat-Gear on an alien world... and everyone knows that "batman without preparation" and "batman with preparation" are two totally different things. I have no idea how good I could actually be in this role, because I never really got the chance to practice it.


There is a mission I have run the introduction to 2 and a half times*... and all of the players have FAILED said introduction it utterly as near as I can tell (only ran it once, but...). I don't want to give too much away, but suffice to say (as near as I can tell) that a good part of success in that mission is buying the correct, completely mundane (not even alchemical) supplies that are specific to the mission. Some of those supplies are objects that work best in the hands of a Fighter, and some of them are expensive material components that the cleric uses to prepare the battle-field.
*The "half" was describing the scenario to my veteran, hyper-gritty (he liked it if the logistics of where the characters' next meal could be acquired was never too far from the players' minds) D&D playing and GMing cousin. Admittedly I only spoke with him for 20 minutes at the most, but still...

Thespians and Loons don't even care about how much damage they are dealing.

I actually want to design a class that buffs the other party members in battle by his very presence (al la Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroism or a Martial's auras), whose entire mission in combat is simply to STAY ALIVE, and whose mechanics make that a Brain type challenge (perhaps using their buffing ability each round gives them negative levels equal to half of their class level or something but they have ways of trading off different situations so on the fly so if they can predict the enemies attack then there defense is actually up to par against it... I dunno). A class where "I take total defense" is a half-way standard move (but NOT every round, since that will result in this class getting CREAMED due to poor tactics). I don't know if it is possible, but I would like to see it attempted, and since it is my concept, the responsibility probably falls on me.

Zeful
2010-05-20, 07:53 PM
My point, folks, is that all those "nonmagical abilities" (slowfall, evasion, Hide in Plain Sight) rape the laws of physics just as surely as if they'd been labelled (Su) instead of (Ex). Fighters without equally nice things are an NPC class. For that matter, I forbid my players to take Ranger levels, as I'm uninterested in sheperding a bunch of cripples through my campaign world >.>

Folks, compared to magic, martial skill is, as of this moment, a backwards practice reserved for the hopelessly naive. Why become a Fighter, or a barbarian, or whatever in the D&D universe when you can reach real power through any number of other careers? If martial skill wants to compete, it's going to need magical backup.

After all, even the gods had magic to back them up. Where would Thor be without Mjolnir? Apollo without his bow? Shango, deprived of his drums, is no longer the thunderer. You don't have to look at the divinities either - Arthur would be dead many times over without his enchanted belt (let's not forget Excalibur). If a person is mundane, his tools cannot be, and, let's face it, gear-dependancy is Bad Game Design.

Oh, and as for your warrior class, I found it rather uninspired and, frankly, annoying. Another ineffectual fix. Yawn. I tried it in one of my games, mind, with the intrepid player (Emerald_Wrath) who always serves as my guinea pig. The massacre which followed is not really worthy of description. Let us state only that his character was humbled by a sorcerer half his level.

Okay then: Remove all classes other than Wizard, Cleric, Druid. Problem Solved.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-20, 11:43 PM
I'm not reading the other's surveys so I can put my unadultered opinion.



1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.
The combat expert. Be able to tactical and martial abilities to fight enemies and solve problems.


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


3.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to meet the requirements of the above combat roles (General terms, please – ability to draw attacks, prevent enemy movement, extra movement, status effects, etc.)?
Ideally, lasting ability. Not only high HP and AC (that becomes weak at higher levels), but be able to resist more effects, not be simply shut down with a single enemy action. In AD&D, fighters started with bad saves, and reached high level with better effects than wizards. Ideally, he was gritty, while wizards could defend themselves with their spells. He needs the ability to cause harm to enemies with more than just damage, be able to control the flow of a battle, even if with less influence than casters.


4.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to fight effectively against spellcasters?
Better abilities to resist spells. He doesn't need to be immune, just have a change to not be defeated with a low level spell, from far. It also would require a re-write of some spells that are just broken.


5.What role should the Fighter occupy outside of combat?
I think he should be a "rogue-lite". He doesn't use magic, he studies mundane ways to do things, like a rogue. Simply rising his skill points from 2 to 4, and adding a few skills to his list is more than enough to make him at least a bit relevant when he's not flinging stell.


6.Should a Fighter be effective with any weapon or armor or lack thereof? If not, should it be limited by the nature of the class, or by the specifics of each individual build/combat role?
An easier way to specialize in more than a weapon at once, and better combat actions would be enough to increase his versatility in combat without becoming a one-trick pony.


7.What role should Feats play in a Fighter revision? Are they sufficient? Necessary but not sufficient? Completely unnecessary?
Necessary, but not completely, as should most classes. He usually only becomes useless if the group has "optimized casters". Having a fighter at your side when facing monsters should be as useful as having a rogue when facing a dungeon with traps (you can, but it starts using up resources, like spells, potions, healing, summons, etc).


8.Are limited use (per day, per encounter, etc.) abilities desirable? Acceptable? Unacceptable?
Tricky. The idea of once a battle stronger abilities is interesting, but increases book keeping, but not fully unusable. Stunning Feat is a daiy-use non-magic feat from core, including all the new feats that are powered by it.


9.Do Fighters need supernatural abilities in order to cope with spellcasters, or should they be entirely mundane?
I guess not. Extraordinary would be enough. Abilities that pushes the human body to its limits should be considered. Take evasion, for example, it's non magic, just shows an incredibly fast reflexes to jump out of a blast's radio. If a low level rogue can do it, so should a high level fighter. Uncanny Dodge is another example, as there's a feat in PHB2 that mimic Improved Uncanny Dodge.


10.Should a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters? Can a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters?
No. Fighters are stronger than normal humans, but spell casters should still be the "big guns". Just a tier of diference.


11.If a Fighter is in a lower tier than full spellcasters, is there another way to entice players to be Fighters?
If the diference is only a tier or two, just allowing players to play fighters in the rule of cool is enough, as people still try playing fighters even knowing they are far weaker with the current rules.


12.What are some of the spells that most strongly affect the viability of the Fighter class? These can be spells that eliminate the Fighter from combat, are necessary for a Fighter to be viable, or make the Fighter obsolete by empowering casters.
I'm not expert on it, so I'll just repeat the ones people already pointed. Any self-only spell that makes a caster able to fight better than a fighter, and win-button spells. True Strike, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease, Paralisy...


13. Should a Fighter be dependent on his equipment to function properly? Should a disarmed Fighter, or one stripped of his possessions when taken prisoner, or one who didn't bring along the right kind of weapon be useless? Should it be necessary for Fighters to spend all of their money on basic magic items (weapons, armor, stat-boosters, etc.) in order to stay relevant at higher levels?
No. He should fight better, but not be disabled for lacking his tools. A high level fighter should be able to tear people appart even if he lost his weapon of choice with improvised tools and others abilities, in the same way that casters can still use some of their magic if they lose the ability to use some of his itens.


14. Should a Fighter be dependent on having spellcaster allies? There are several classes that you can make an entire party out of. Should a party of nothing but Fighters be viable?
No class should be fully independent, but be usable. A group of only fighters should be able to pull their weight without buffing, and need to spend resources to make up the lack of healing, and even pass a dungeon without skillmonkeys. albeit at high costs. They should just function better at a group with more variety. A lot of mythologic stories have groups made of nothing but warriors, with a few magic items. In Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring did pretty well when they lost Gandalf, and they had no kind of healing magic, other than the one used to cute Frodo. D&D could be a bit more like that.
[
Whew... Sorry for the wall of text.

nonsi
2010-05-21, 06:19 AM
Oh, and as for your warrior class, I found it rather uninspired and, frankly, annoying. Another ineffectual fix. Yawn. I tried it in one of my games, mind, with the intrepid player (Emerald_Wrath) who always serves as my guinea pig. The massacre which followed is not really worthy of description. Let us state only that his character was humbled by a sorcerer half his level.

You finding the Warrior uninspired and annoying is a matter of taste and there's no argument against that, but that's not the issue.
Any character can take any other character of twice its level given the appropriate circumstances. Therefore I need some more details to make a worthwhile assessment:
- What levels were both characters?
- What was the scenery?
- What were the encounter's stages?
- Was the warrior surprised?
- Did the player use his warrior wisely?
etc.

What really transpired during this test you made?

Corporate M
2010-05-21, 09:54 PM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.
A fighter should be a DPSer. He should be able to dishout or take the most damage, or some "lightning bruiser" combonation of the two...


2.What role should the Fighter occupy in combat? (For consistency, let's use the 4e terms – striker, defender, controller, and leader. Also specify melee or ranged) Should each build/character fit one role, or should any given Fighter be able to adapt to multiple roles (not necessarily all – just more than one)?
I could see the fighter fulfilling all the roles. A debuffing fixed hexblade, (controller) a fixed marshal with good auras, (leader) perhaps I am digressing from the point and want "fighter" to interchange with "martial". But the fighter itself I see is primarily a defender who could double as a striker. His abilities geared toward weapon type.


3.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to meet the requirements of the above combat roles (General terms, please – ability to draw attacks, prevent enemy movement, extra movement, status effects, etc.)?
It should depend on his weapon. There's three groups of weapons, (six if you count damage type...) the fighter should be broad enough to use alot of weapons, but narrow enough to require specialization.

For example: A simple weapons fighter should be implied to be like a martial artist. "Spearman", dashing rogues who use daggers, etc. As such, he'd rely on evasion bonuses and become a "blink tank" and take advantage of flatfooted opponents for extra damage.

A martial fighter would be the most basic. With more HP, damage reduction, and the ability to absorb vast amounts of damage and delvier blunt trauma.

An exotic fighter would just be that, exotic. Focusing on status effects, trips, and other special rules to mess with the opponent's entire squad.


4.What kinds of abilities will a revised Fighter class need in order to fight effectively against spellcasters?
The fighter is going to need something that is diverse and emulates spells. It doesn't have to be called magic. People are so tied up in the details that "it feels like a mage", that they'd rather the fighter suck then just cave and turn him into tome of battle but with even more options.


5.What role should the Fighter occupy outside of combat?
I don't believe a fighter has a role outside of combat. That'd be more along the lines of a marshal or a rogue. Which I look at as a martial bard. If rogues and marshals are martial's bard, then fighters are like warmages.


6.Should a Fighter be effective with any weapon or armor or lack thereof? If not, should it be limited by the nature of the class, or by the specifics of each individual build/combat role?
Yes. Different builds should dictate his effectiveness with different weapons and armor.


7.What role should Feats play in a Fighter revision? Are they sufficient? Necessary but not sufficient? Completely unnecessary?
I think feats are inefficient. They don't stack well, and just kind of lie there lifeless... For something so medicore, it sure is demanding too. If people want to try and alter feats to be more accessible for the fighter, be my guest. But I don't think it'd do a whole lot of good.


8.Are limited use (per day, per encounter, etc.) abilities desirable? Acceptable? Unacceptable?
Desirable. It seems to work for other classes... I believe tome of battle was a huge success. My only problem with tome of battle was

A: It wasn't taken further. Just that one book.
And B: Manuevers become obsolete once you level. Sure there may be the rare moment you can't "recharge" them. But the whole "per encounter" thing essentially ruined any chance of you being stuck in a bind using low level crap. Being able to spam your most powerful "spells" every round isn't what I had in mind... I want the fighter to be good, not a mary sue...


9.Do Fighters need supernatural abilities in order to cope with spellcasters, or should they be entirely mundane?
If by mundane you mean extraordinary abilities. I hardly call that mundane if done right. Spellcasters always have to worry about dispells, the great thing about fighters would be they wouldn't have such a worry. But the trick is to make them capable like casters, without just making them casters without that flaw.


10.Should a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters? Can a Fighter be in the same tier as full spellcasters?
I think the reason casters are such high tier is purely because of speculative builds, and mass diversity. Consider this:

Wizards are tier 5 because we assume they have books to copy. Why would books just be lying around for wizards to copy? If we simply ignored that whole aspect of the wizard, he'd basically be a sorcerer who actually knows LESS spells per day and spells known, but gets more chances to abuse metamagic feats. Without a nice DM, the wizard actually goes into tier-3 category.

Clerics and druids is the same thing. Albeit enforcing their rules relies more on "roleplaying", which is a bad idea. However, the cleric is easier to solve then the druid precisely because of roleplaying. You just tag cleric spells as [evil/good/chaos/law], and they can't cast spells not in their descriptor. This limits cheese. Druids unfourtanately, were just built too exploitable as both great shapeshifters and decent casters. I'd argue to get rid of wildshape per day ability, replace it with a stacking ever increasing wildshape, and let the druid choose to either wildshape or have access to his spells, but not both.


11.If a Fighter is in a lower tier than full spellcasters, is there another way to entice players to be Fighters?
Just bringing new fighter builds will entice people. People like change. Well, some people... they'll want to try it out. As well, more people would feel in control of their build as a fighter. Sastisfying them more then just being segregated into a list of spells to choose from.


12.What are some of the spells that most strongly affect the viability of the Fighter class? These can be spells that eliminate the Fighter from combat, are necessary for a Fighter to be viable, or make the Fighter obsolete by empowering casters.
We assume fighters do best at scrapping. That they fight with weapons and go directly into combat. Yet even at low level, clerics are enhancing their weapons for long periods of time, and sorcerers are using true strike for a +20 attack bonus. It's hard to compete with that. And that's just their scrapper capabilities. Let alone the fact that a maxed out fireball will be hard to sizeup too no matter how well you build your fighter. A +1 here and +2 there cannot hope to keepup with 10d6. Fighters need abilities that imbue their weapon with more power. Fighters should be the ones who see massive damage as the ultimate goal. That way if pure HP slaps don't work, massive damage save or die will...


13. Should a Fighter be dependent on his equipment to function properly? Should a disarmed Fighter, or one stripped of his possessions when taken prisoner, or one who didn't bring along the right kind of weapon be useless? Should it be necessary for Fighters to spend all of their money on basic magic items (weapons, armor, stat-boosters, etc.) in order to stay relevant at higher levels?
I'd say a fighter should rely on weapons. If he didn't, he'd be a monk, or a caster... thats the point. Casters ARE the weapon, fighters use props... Typically big, phallic, props... Not to say that fighters should have to spend a fortune to stay on the same level. Their abilities should do that. But their abilities should compliment the props.


14. Should a Fighter be dependent on having spellcaster allies? There are several classes that you can make an entire party out of. Should a party of nothing but Fighters be viable?
Yes, theoretically. Not that a fighter should be able to do everything. But if some fighters can dish it out, and other fighters can take it. There's no reason they should need some other class to pickup the slack. Thats something that eludes most people is being self-sufficient without being multi-talented.

I think of examples of where some classes were almost self sufficient, but did not quite measure up. Dragon Shaman comes to mind. Dragon Shaman tried to be a class that buffs allies and can take care of himself. It endedup being neither. A fighter could have fast healing, or enough HP where he doesn't need to cry for a cleric to come hold his hand. But he should have to choose his build so he doesn't throw all the enemies down AND not have any bruises to show for it...

Haarkla
2010-05-23, 06:11 AM
1.Start with a sentence or two about what you think a Fighter should be, in broad and basic terms.

The fighter should be a skilled melee (& ranged) warrior, able to cover almost any martial achetype.

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

Striker and defender.

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

Better bonuses, more crits, better secondary attacks.

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

Better saves (esp. Ref), more ability to disrupt spells, antimagical items.

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

A fighter should have more skill points and class skills for more out of combat skills.

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

Generally, yes.

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

They are sufficient and should play very little role in a fighter revision.

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

They are not desirable.

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

Any supernatural abilities should be optional, and have a mundane alternative.

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

I think it would be very difficult to improve fighters to the same level as full spellcasters.

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

I find fighter a popular class already.

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

Entangle. Overpowers druid at low levelsa. can one shot an above-level-appropiate encounter.

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

No, no & no.

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

No & yes.

itastelikelove
2010-05-24, 09:24 PM
Alright! I'm getting ready to start working on the revised Manifesto. Please feel free to keep filling out surveys and having other discussions besides. It may take me quite a while to finish, since you guys and gals have given me a lot of material to sift through, and I'm kind of swamped right now IRL. But rest assured - it will be done! I'll try to post summaries of my updates as I go, so you won't have to wade through the whole Manifesto each time.

itastelikelove
2010-06-02, 02:16 AM
Hopefully I'm not at the point of thread necromancy yet, but I said I'd edit the original Manifesto, and I'm doing it. Just kind of slowly. So, here are the new sections II-IV.


II. Presuppositions: The Undisputed Facts

1. All classes are not created equal. Fighters are not magical. As such, they can never be Tier 1. As such, they can never rival the versatility of the Wizard class. This does not mean that a Fighter will never be able to defeat a Wizard, nor does this mean that Fighters should be useless. This also does not mean that a Wizard should be able to do everything a Fighter can do, only better.

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

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

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

III. Merits: What Fighters Can Do Right Now

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

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

3. Fighters get lots of feats. They don't really need any more. Not because it wouldn't help - just because they already have them. The greatest benefit to having so many bonus feats is that there is enormous potential for customization and variety...but that potential is usually extinguished by the need to take specific sets of feats in order to create an effective build.

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

1.Fighters are easily defeated by magic. They can be removed completely from combat without even slowing down a decent spellcaster. Not cool. Especially since they should be the party's first line of defense, or most consistently active offense.

a. There are any number of Save-or-Die and Save-or-Suck spells that can put a Fighter out of commission. Since Fighters have a high base Fort save, spells that require such saves are somewhat less threatening than those that use Will saves.
b. Fighters have no method to deal with force effects, such as Wall of force or Forcecage.
c. Other spells can make spellcasters undetectable or untouchable to a Fighter.
d. Fighters have no way to respond to spells like Wish and Gate.

2.Fighters are very limited in combat.

a. Your possible actions are: move, do some damage, stand still, do more damage, wait for your allies to do something, do a little more damage. Your other choices are not particularly useful, and prevent you from doing the one thing you are good at: dealing damage.
b. Effective Fighters are mostly chargers or full-attackers. If you aren't doing what you're built for, your usefulness (damage) drops by 50-75%. The one real exception is the chain tripper, and even that one build needs to make multiple melee attacks in order to be effective.
c. Fighters cannot do an effective job of tanking. That is, they cannot use their giant muscles and heavy armor to protect weaker members of the party. They have no way to draw attacks from opponents or prevent them from reaching the rest of the party.
d. Fighters have little defense against opponents they cannot reach, and no way to threaten them unless they carry a bow. And even that doesn't always work.

3. Fighters are dependent on their equipment

a. A Fighter without their equipment is useless. Unless they're specifically built to fight without any, in which case they aren't as effective as they could be.
b. There are situations in which Fighters are almost useless without magical weapons or weapons of a specific material. Certain other items are also necessary for Fighters to keep up with the rest of the party.

4. Anything Fighters can do, spellcasters can do better.

a. Spells like Polymorph and Divine Power help casters fight like a Fighter.
b. The combat maneuvers available to Fighters (trip, disarm, bull rush, etc.) can all be executed with less risk using spells.

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

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

Did I miss anything?

nonsi
2010-06-02, 06:09 AM
A few things . . .


You forgot the action economy factor.

>>
Fighters get lots of feats. They don't really need any more. Not because it wouldn't help - just because they already have them. The greatest benefit to having so many bonus feats is that there is enormous potential for customization and variety...but that potential is usually extinguished by the need to take specific sets of feats in order to create an effective build.
<<

1. Of the absolute majority of feats that are worth a damn, most revolve around stats. Good feats should combine them with more combat options.
2. A lot of feats (e.g. Expertise, Finesse, the Spring Attack tree or some variation of them) shouldn’t even be feats to begin with. They should be open options for everybody and best exploited by high-BAB characters.
3. Most feat-trees should be cut down to size (some should come with heavy BAB requirements to keep the Fighter-fix more viable to take them).
4. Even with the above changes, a few more would help to provide even more combat versatility.


>>
IV. Fatal Flaws: Why Fighters Are Just SO Darn Awful
. . .
d. Fighters have no way to respond to spells like Wish and Gate.
<<
That’s because no one really can. They totally break the game. They should be cut out of the spells list altogether.
. . .

Other than the above, my [Warrior (+ mechanical tweaks) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8366731&postcount=50) + last momen's changes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151826&page=7)] already handles everything you’ve mentioned (and a hellofalot more) quite adequately.

Eldan
2010-06-02, 06:21 AM
I agree on cutting those spells, yes. Someone really should restart the core spell rewriting project (don't look at me, I'm busy).

Gate is best handled as a plot device anyway (as is Wish)... if I allow it, it would require a true name.

DracoDei
2010-06-02, 05:08 PM
Ok, one of the problems I have heard people bring up is that if you start a new feat chain (such as a Great-Sword master who later wants to also add Composite Long-bow for a ranged option), you have to start off from square one (if you don't think that is actually a problem, you should probably ignore this post)... just had one of my "it is so SIMPLE!... but could it actually WORK?" type ideas (haven't been reading all the proposed fighter fixes out there, so this may have been thought of before) :
Basic concept:
At higher character levels, lower level feats can be bought at a 2 for one or even 3 for 1 rate.

Very rough draft of wording
Starting at level X a fighter has the OPTION (or even required in some versions?) to take TWO feats every time he could take one, BUT one of those feats must have no pre-requisites other than race and ability scores, (and for those purposes the character's ability scores are PERHAPS counted as being 2 points lower each). The other one must either meet those requirements, or have the first feat taken, plus race and ability score requirements (NOT reduced) as its only pre-requisites. Not SPECIFICALLY that neither of the feats can have the "1st level only requirement".

At level Y when using this option, the fighter gets three feats instead of two, and the third can have the first two as pre-requisites... Tad-da! Instant Mastery (or a bit better) for feats... or at least I hope so...

So, having thrown that out (and it is a much simpler concept than it might appear by the word-count), what do people think? Does it solve the particular problem described?


P.S.:Gate as inter-planar transportation is probably perfectly fine. Gate as summoning is where the cheese starts flowing...

Lans
2010-06-02, 11:16 PM
I had the idea giving the fighter an equal amount of feats as a sorcerer has spells known, and breaking them off into 'levels'. Level 0 feats had to have been able to have been taken by the fighter at level 0, and level 9 feats had to have been able to of been taken when he was level 18. I'll let figure out2-8 on your own. Which lead to a fighter with 43 bonus feats 43-x feats and X of those ACF that they came up with for the fighter later on.
*Edit* Which gives the fighter the option to diversify and get a bit of utility through its 7 base feats, or the combat form feats, or a couple of maneavers.

Frozen_Feet
2010-06-03, 06:26 AM
Fighters don't need to respond to wish or gate; those are high-level spells, only comng up in high-level adventures, and they're broken to boot. Nothing that's already broken should be used as a benchmark.

Instead, fighters need counters against Entangle, Glitterdust, Stunning Ray, Invisibility, Celerity and a number of other SoL and SoD spells that enter the game much sooner, but can obviate the need for fighter class or completely destroy it at those levels. Some of those can be avoided by right skills or saves, the problem is fighter either doesn't have them or can't afford them and still remain effective.

itastelikelove
2010-06-07, 02:30 AM
Here are my revised Sections V and VI. Again, please let me know what you think. (I'm sure these sections will need the most revising...let's see how it goes)


V. Expectations: What We the People Want to See

This Section, and the following Section, are composed of traits that we Expect to see in any remake of the Fighter class, and Suggestions for additions that are not critical, but which could add to the playability and general enjoyment of the class. Following each Expectation or Suggestion will be a short list of ideas about how to implement said Expectation or Suggestion. These are not, themselves, Expectations or Suggestions - merely examples of how the above might be implemented. You are free to ignore the examples completely, as is your Right as a member of the Homebrew Forum. There are more (and more in-depth) examples throughout this thread, and elsewhere on the forums.

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

1a. A higher base Will save, or a level-dependent bonus would be the easiest fix.
1b. Something like Mettle (Crusader ability, ToB) or Iron Heart Surge (ToB) might work too.
2. Effective “Tanking” ability. Some reason for enemies to hit you instead of the rest of the party.

2a. An ability to force enemies to target the Fighter against their better judgment.
2b. An ability to hurt foes who target your allies.
2c. An ability to hurt foes who ignore you.
2d. An ability that makes Fighters such a nuisance that they must be dealt with first.
3. More worthwhile options in combat. Hitting things with a stick is fun, but it's just not enough.

3a. Interesting new battlefield control abilities.
3b. New ways to use old battlefield control abilities (bull rush, grapple, overrun, etc.).
3c. The ability to continue damaging foes while using battlefield control abilities could make them better options.
3d. Other options or abilities that grant tactical benefits in specific situations.
4. Better economy of actions.

4a. Pounce. Simple and slightly broken, but a very easy way to grant movement AND multiple attacks in the same round.
4b. Grant Spring Attack, Bounding Assault (PHB2), and Rapid Blitz (PHB2) as free bonus feats. Or a similar ability that allows you to make attacks while moving
4c. If a caster can move 30+ feet and still call on ancient powers twice in one round, I should be able to move 10 feet and still hit something with my stick twice. At least.
4d. Abilities that use Swift or Immediate actions.
4e. Abilities that can be used without taking up an action.
5. More Skill points and better class Skills. Especially Intimidate. And some others.

5a. Intimidate
5b. Spot and Listen
5c. A bunch of others.
5d. Use Magic Device. Letting Fighters use more magic isn't really what we want...but it would be useful.
6. Abilities to prevent or counter spellcasting. Or anything to help out against those pesky magic users.

6a. An ability to keep a target from casting for a round or more.
6b. A better way to interrupt spellcasters than wasting a whole turn readying an action to make a single attack.
6c. A way to use Intimidate to disrupt spellcasting at a distance.
7. A way to deal with Force effects.

7a. Allowing Force effects to take damage works...but it's more of a houserule than a Fighter fix.
7b. An ability that lets Fighters use their magic items to Dispel magic.
7c. An ability that lets Fighters move to avoid or get past the area of a spell as an immediate action.
8.A way to deal with flying or out-of-reach enemies.

8a. Longbow? Not always useful, and easy enough to guard against with magic.
8b. Trick shots: abilities to make ranged attacks around obstacles or concealment.
8c. Long-range Intimidate effects or other disruptive abilities. No damage, but still useful.
8d. The best offense...if you can't justify any abilities to attack unreachable enemies, your Fighter can have large defensive bonuses against such opponents.
9. A variety of viable builds. Especially ones that can do more than just deal damage.

9a. At the very least, let's see an effective tanking build.
9b. And maybe a little love for other fighting styles – Sword-and-Board, One-Handed, etc.
9c. Possibly even the ability to change styles, roles, or even builds during battle.
10. Something that can't be done better by a Cleric with Divine power, or other spellcaster, or a Barbarian who dips two levels of Fighter.

10a. Class-level-dependent bonuses on combat maneuvers (trip, grapple, etc.). It's not much, but it's something.
10b. Special abilities other than just “moar feets plz”. Something that no one else can do.
10c. And make sure that the good stuff can't be had with just a two-level dip. Or that it at least scales with class levels, so that a 20-level Fighter can use them much more effectively than a dipper.
11. Mundane abilities only. This means no (Sp) or (Su) abilities, including things like Spell Resistance.

11a. Some small concessions can be made, as long as you justify the individual abilities with some very good fluff. And even more is forgivable if your Fix is meant for a specific setting.
11b. That doesn't mean you can't have ridiculously good abilities – use Improved Evasion and Iron Heart Surge (ToB) as examples, and flesh it out from there.
12. Include a clear statement of your Fighter Fix's intended role (in/out of combat) and power level in any Fix. We might be able to guess, but we will all be on the same page much more quickly if you just tell us.

12a. The combat roles defined in 4e (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) are pretty clear and can help avoid confusion...although they don't always translate perfectly to 3.5e. Feel free to be more specific if you must.
12b. You needn't constrain your fix to a single role, nor must you encompass all of them. Just tell us what you mean and we can work with it.
12c. The Tier system is a pretty good way to quantify power level. If you use it, most other homebrewers will know what you mean. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

VI. Suggestions: What Might Also Be Kind of Nice

1. Other out-of-combat options. Fighters are primarily concerned with Fighting. That is how it should be. But sometimes there's no fighting to be done, and Fighters can get mighty bored. Some other options would be nice.

1a. Anything at all to round out the Fighter.
1b. Perhaps skill-assist bonuses, to represent group leadership ability.
1c. Maybe the ability to grant tactical bonuses by planning ambushes or attacks, or modifying fortifications.
2. Abilities to encourage diversity of Ability Scores. Or at least something nice for the oddball who wants to play a smart Fighter.

2a. Something to reward people who want a different kind of Fighter.
2b. Not just adding different ability modifiers to things that a Fighter can already do – if you're going to try, at least make an effort to come up with something more fun than “add Int/Wis to hit/damage”.
3. No loss of the class' current level of damage-dealing potential.

3a. Because sometimes a player really only cares about hitting things really hard with their stick.
3b. Or at least not without a compensatory increase in utility in other areas. If you decide to take away most of the Fighter's bonus Feats to make room for useful special abilities, some of the classic optimized builds may disappear. Try to keep that in mind, and provide other powerful options.

Corporate M
2010-06-07, 03:35 AM
I had the idea giving the fighter an equal amount of feats as a sorcerer has spells known, and breaking them off into 'levels'. Level 0 feats had to have been able to have been taken by the fighter at level 0, and level 9 feats had to have been able to of been taken when he was level 18. I'll let figure out2-8 on your own. Which lead to a fighter with 43 bonus feats 43-x feats and X of those ACF that they came up with for the fighter later on.
*Edit* Which gives the fighter the option to diversify and get a bit of utility through its 7 base feats, or the combat form feats, or a couple of maneavers.
This is actually the best idea I've heard so far. It's worth reworking existing feats and scaling them in power/binding them to trees if they level off.

I might actually propose this idea in a future game. I see weapon focus/specialization as they are now as level 0 feats, while if you took away stat and other feat prequisites, some could level. Improved Disarm would at most be a level 2 feat even if it had no prequisites.


But this is actually a very good idea for the fighter with alot of potential.

itastelikelove
2010-06-07, 03:47 AM
Alright, alright, I shouldn't have mentioned Gate and Wish. Sheesh...

I put them there because they present a problem for the Fighter, not because I expect the Fighter to have any kind of equivalent power, or a way of dealing with them on an equal footing - note that neither is mentioned in Section V (Expectations).

As for limiting or eliminating them: I agree. BUT. That's fixing the system, not Fixing the Fighter. We should be able to make a viable class without forcing DMs to alter the rules of the system.

As for actual ways to deal with them...When used during combat, a spell-disruption ability should do most of the work. Not perfect, but not something that Fighters currently have, either. When used to prepare for combat...perhaps level 17 Fighters could have some sort of pre-combat buff abilities to help them cope with such power? Maybe not...

anyway...I'll either erase that bit, or add some clarification there.


You forgot the action economy factor.

I may have. I thought I included that in the bit about not having enough options in combat. If I didn't, I'll either add it there, or give it its own bullet point.