2012-09-27, 08:50 PM (ISO 8601)
Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?
QFT. If there is a fighter class, then it should be broken up into multiple styles and archetypes, and there shouldn't be a "basic fighter". There is the zweihander duelist, the two-handed axe/hammer brute, the polearm master, the sword-and-shield defender, and the axe-and-shield vanguard, and they all share the same chassis (BAB, saving throws, hit dice), but there is not a "basic fighter". Those archetypes I listed can come from the current fighter with a specific selection of feats, but that shouldn't be the case. You could just as easily take Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Rapier, and Improved Unarmed Strike, but that shouldn't be from the class. Sure, with the new fighter, you can take the Vanguard archetype and take Weapon Focus: Rapier for style points, but you won't be as effective as if you used an axe, and most importantly, it tells you so. You can be half-decent, you'll still get the Vanguard's speed boost and charging features, but you won't get the +attack bonus you would've if you'd grabbed an axe.
Originally Posted by gkathellar
Ultimately, though, I dislike class systems for anything other than quick character creation for a casual game.