What do you think a Fighter should be?

[TuggyNE]

I was thinking more like 25 AC at level 4 (a 3-DEXMOD Bugbear with +1 Breastplate armor and a +1 heavy shield). He was nearly invincible to a platoon of low-level fighters, though they did eventually manage to box him in through sheer numbers and take him down with special combat maneuvers which bypassed his AC.

Not all opponents are low-op humanoids.

It doesn't look boring to me. The sheer variety available among fighter bonus feats and basic combat maneuvers alone ...

The funny thing about variety is you generally have to read through all of it to make proper use of it. Odd, no? (Feats and spells, in particular, are rather poorly balanced, and require a good knowledge of the entire system before making any sensible choices; other subsystems in existence reduce the amount of preknowledge required, which is a direct and substantial advantage.)

Well, it should perhaps, but it didn't. And Wotco stuck a fork in it five years ago so we're pretty much stuck. Houserules are all we're ever going to have unless we jump to 5E.

See, here's a crucial point: my philosophy (and that of several others in this thread) is that houserules should be standardized as much as possible. Individual DMs should not have the burden of reinventing all the needed fixes to the game; most are not competent to do that, and the ones that are should be helping the others save time and effort. In other words, houserules should be collected, probably online, and tested and revised until they're as better than the default rules.

In opposition to this is the rather lazy belief (that ultimately means far more effort and far less effectiveness) that each DM should just put in their own "fluff-based" rules to balance things. Not that basing rules on fluff is a bad thing; it's the negligence involved in saying "oh, no, everyone can just make a few changes and the game doesn't need fixed" that's problematic. 3.5 does need fixing, and the best way to do that, is to, you know, actually fix it and let everybody know as best you can.

Fundamentally, this is why I got into projects like RACSD, one of the main reasons I homebrew (or critique homebrew), and in general one of my key focuses. I want to fix the game, not just for a given play group, or a single campaign, but for as many people as possible as correctly as possible.

It's DC 25 for anything you haven't specifically trained the animal to do, and they can only learn 3-6 tricks plus the bonuses from the druid's level. Though personally even that is more reliability than I think they should have.

Yes, but have you looked at the tricks? "Attack", "Defend", "Track", "Come", "Down", "Guard": six is basically all you need to be effective. Bonus tricks per level are just icing on the cake. (Or insult to injury, as the case may be.)

Yeah, and pretty much everyone agrees the casters are overpowered so how is that a problem exactly?

The problem is not the houserules; the problem is the "secret" part. I.e., not only is it not a common houserule, it may not even be known to the players ahead of time. Not cool.

Nonsense. You're still whacking them with AoOs as they try to sneak by, and they're not just going to ignore you; you're hurting them and so their ignorant primitive impulse is to hurt you back. You've trained to bear the pain unflinchingly; they haven't.

So... a Fighter is only useful when fighting ill-trained, poorly equipped foes, and falls apart as soon as they run into a worthy opponent? Again, not cool. That's a cop out, in fact; other classes can at least be useful against themselves, but a Fighter trying to prevent an enemy Fighter from attacking the "squishies" (falsely so called, in many cases, but whatever) is going to be ineffective.

Furthermore, there are some enemies that are specifically resistant to pain, or sensible enough to ignore minor pin: will a commanded, mindless undead care noticeably? How about a giant? An ooze? A dragon?

My perspective is just as relevant as anyone else's.

Yes and no. In an ethical sense, sure; everyone is entitled to speak their piece, however misguided others may consider it. In a scholarly sense, not really; those whose arguments depend on questionable assumptions or unusual situations for validity are going to be considered largely inaccurate. (I understand this is opposed to your opinion that the universe actually cares what you personally, or anyone else for that matter, is thinking. Let's just say "it's an unsubstantiable axiom most people find hard to swallow" and leave it at that.)

[Grundy]

I want fighters to be non-magical, but I want them to be superhuman by level 6. Most importantly, when facing a level x caster, the level x fighter should win 50% of the time.
Of course, one of the advantages a caster has is utility- divination, mobility, etc. That means if they were to meet, without preparation or surprise, within line of sight, on that mythical even playing field, the fighter should usually win- say 75% of the time. That scenario is basically the fighter getting the drop on the caster.
The opposite is also true, of course. Casters should be able to get advantage, when they find the fighter's weaknesses.
Basically I see the fighter near the far mundane end of the spectrum, just this side of barbarians, and wizards on the far magical end. All the other core classes should fall in between.

[Ashtagon]

Level 1 - soldier out of basic training

Level 3: Realistic veteran soldier

Level 6 - upper end of realistic human experience; The Great Escape; Die Hard; Conan

Level 10-15: wuxia, chambara

Level 16-20: Hercules, Gilgamesh

[Sutremaine]

I want fighters to be non-magical, but I want them to be superhuman by level 6.

Unfortunately, D&D gives casters so many toys that the best of the purely mundane ones left over aren't really very good. A common complaint about melee powerups is that they tread on the toes of the casters, but the casters shouldn't be standing there in the first place.