Why does the Fighter class have no skills?

[Kioran]

Now, 3.5 is pretty old by now, and has since been replaced or amended innumerable times, be it as D&D 4th and 5th or as Pathfinder. And while the Fighter, one of the weakest PC classes in the entire book (except when taken as a 2-4 level dip or starting ramp for PrCs), has received some manner of buff in all of these, the buffs have usually taken the form of fighter-specific increases to damage, AC or attack rolls, or just Tome-of-Battle-ifying the class.

In neither buff though have the fighter's base HD been addressed. To clarify the term as I use it, base HD describe the per-level stat growth as if it were monster HD for advancement, meaning the actual hit die (d4 through d12), Saves (0(commoner)-3 (monk) good saves), BAB and skills per level.
Those base HD, in case of the Fighter, are pretty bad. The Fighter has slightly above-average HP per level and a good BAB, and everything else about him is at the bottom for PC classes (one could argue that the Fortitude Save is slightly better than Reflex, but that's about it). Skill monkey classes (such as Rogue, Scout etc.) are usually on par since they often have high skills per level which sets of the loss of HP and BAB to some extent, and divine casters (Druid, Cleric, favored soul) are similar(trading some HP and BAB for better saves and/or skills), whereas almost all of the other fighter classes beat him (Barb - more skills, more HP, Ranger - more skills, better saves, Swashbuckler - better skills, Duskblade - even, better saves in return for less HP)

This has always struck me as odd, especially given how the Fighter is supposed to be generic and Versatile, and also a "tank" of sorts. I remember that in AD&D 2nd, Fighters actually had impressive saves at high levels, for example. Now, the 3.5 Fighter is actually only moderately tanky, because while he does have decent HP and can use heavy armor to shore up his AC, any AoE spell or most disabling spells will find him an easy target. Without a Cleric or other buff-bot to remove disabling conditions and shore up his defenses, a Fighter is not all that tough.

In Core, a Fighter also deals mediocre damage in fights, but with the Feats in CW and the PHB 2, it is actually possible to play a Fighter 20 that still scales into the late game and can use the fighter bonus feats. So the class Features, while not good, are not bad to the point of making the class non-viable.

What I always found depressing about the Fighter though was that this mediocre performance in Fights was coupled with a near-total lack of other utility. Simply put, unless they are swinging Swords, Fighters do nothing.

Given how Spellcasters (Sorcerers less so than others) automatically gain out-of-combat utilities due to spells, and how Skillmonkeys are basically specialists at this, the Fighters are literally one of the few classes who have to sit out completely outside fights, not only by choice (such as when a spell caster picks no spells with out of combat uses).

This, as much as anything else, has always depressed me about the class, even more so given the fact that it also keeps them away from Prestige classes. Personally, giving the Fighter 4 skill points and an expanded Class skill list would be a really good idea and not break the class in the least. In fact, it would be a part of the fix the class actually needs, more so than any damage or Combat buff (while the Fighter is mostly about fighting, he can actually do it - even if it needs buffs).

I am really amazed that none of the major publishers seem to share my opinion, especially given that the flavour/background of Soldiers, mercenaries or other Fighter backgrounds (Viking Sailors?) could actually use some rounding out with skill points...

Am I being crazy here?

[Vhaidara]

That is actually one of the more common minimum effort fixes for Fighter: Bigger skill list and either 4 or 6 skill points/level.

[fishyfishyfishy]

No, you're not being crazy. Most homebrew fixes on these forums give fighters more skill points and an expanded class skill list. Not to mention the variety of other class features people come up with.

[Deophaun]

This is a holdover from the reign of critical fumble rules, when it was assumed fighters suffered so many concussions due to training sword slips while fighting practice dummies that they just couldn't learn anything more complicated than how to tie their shoes.

No wait, scratch that, tying shoes is way too complicated.

[Kioran]

This is a holdover from the reign of critical fumble rules, when it was assumed fighters suffered so many concussions due to training sword slips while fighting practice dummies that they just couldn't learn anything more complicated than how to tie their shoes.

No wait, scratch that, tying shoes is way too complicated.

I laughed

That is actually one of the more common minimum effort fixes for Fighter: Bigger skill list and either 4 or 6 skill points/level.

Good, I mean it's hardly a revolutionary idea. I find it reassuring that others share my sentiment on this.

In my current game they get 4 skill points, an expanded list and a good Will Save. It's a lazy fix, not a big one, but I don't think it puts the fighter over the top (even when I restrict material to Core, Unearthed Arcana, PHB 2 and CW, CAdv, CArc and Cdiv).

[Coidzor]

IIRC, it's grandfathered in outdated/faulty ideas about niche preservation that led to Fighters having such abysmal skills and that kept it at that way in Pathfinder.

[Chronos]

The idea was supposed to be that fighting was the fighter's niche (hence the name). Most other classes would be more useful outside of a fight, but a fighter was supposed to be the most useful class in a fight. Which might have been a decent idea, were it not for the fact that they aren't actually the best at fighting, either, and anyway different groups have far different weighting of combat vs. noncombat encounters.

[Flickerdart]

The designers were basically of the opinion that everyone should be good at one thing exactly, otherwise their precious niches would collapse. Of course, we all know what happened next anyway.

Given that the fighter is supposed to be able to model knights, samurai, and similar noble warrior classes, it's absolutely no stretch to give them a skill list and skill points appropriate for such a role. Your common rude and crude mercs and guardsmen should have NPC class levels and not get in the way of the real moves and shakers.

[Kurald Galain]

In Pathfinder, fighters can take an alternative class feature ("archetype") that gives them 4 skill points per level and all int-based skills as class skills. This by itself is considered one of the best things a fighter can get, and enough to raise it to the next tier.

[(Un)Inspired]

Well, the warblade gets a better skill list, the ability to rock every save, 4+ int skills per level, and class features that reward you for putting points into int...

I know a lot of people hate ToB because of all the karate but if I ever wanted to play a mundane it's probably what I'd roll with.

[Ssalarn]

IIRC, it's grandfathered in outdated/faulty ideas about niche preservation that led to Fighters having such abysmal skills and that kept it at that way in Pathfinder.

Largely this. When the game was transitioning from 2E to 3E, someone thought, based on past versions of the game and in no way related to the actual new system they'd produced, that being a "master of combat" was equivalent to being a "master of magic". Seriously. A Fighter bonus feat was weighted to be roughly on par with a level of spellcasting.
During the switch to 3.5, they focused on a bunch of other issues but never really touched this one. Paizo picked up the ball and decided that OGL compliance meant that the skills should stay relatively unchanged, so they added one new class skill and called it good.

So now you've got Fighters who don't learn how to do things. Which is silly of course; modern soldiers tend to pick up a huge array of skills including climbing, swimming, stealth, survival, and typically a profession or specialization. Medieval warriors probably would have had an equal number of things to keep track of, including linguistics (speaking 3 or 4 languages was pretty much a given), leatherworking, horsemanship (encompassing both handle animal and ride), some form of social skill, etc.

Houseruling Fighters up to 4+Int (and usually adding a couple class skills, like Perception) is not just common, it's almost mandatory unless your game is composed entirely of DPR challenge dungeon crawls with hand-waved social interactions. That or you use a Fighter alteration (things like the Genius Guide to Talented Fighters or The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats for Pathfinder) to allow the Fighter access to the tools the core chassis fails to provide.

[Kioran]

Well, the warblade gets a better skill list, the ability to rock every save, 4+ int skills per level, and class features that reward you for putting points into int...

I know a lot of people hate ToB because of all the karate but if I ever wanted to play a mundane it's probably what I'd roll with.

ToB was the blueprint for 4E. It basically turned everyone, including Fighters, into casters. I personally think that's legit, but it doesn't really meet the archetype in my opinion. Too....flashy. Honestly, I think it was a huge design copout, and the only ToB class that actually makes sense thematically is the Swordsage.

Much like there has to be an auto-attacking melee character in a MOBA, there has to be a class in D&D that fights mostly by using the basic combat system. They fight like the others, only that they are better at it.
That's the fighter. The Warblade was never a worthy replacement, just another Archetype.

In Pathfinder, fighters can take an alternative class feature ("archetype") that gives them 4 skill points per level and all int-based skills as class skills. This by itself is considered one of the best things a fighter can get, and enough to raise it to the next tier.

I personally think that Pathfinder as an attempt to fix 3.5 was far too timid, they almost entirely avoided big changes that would actually change the balance of power. The Fighter got a small buff, but so did everyone else. And the buff that the Fighters got wasn't really the buff they needed unless they picked said alternate class feature.
Given the people who worked on Pathfinder this doesn't surprise me. Pathfinder's biggest value is not in being an upgrade of 3.5, but rather in being a slightly different "backup" of it that is still in print.

Largely this. When the game was transitioning from 2E to 3E, someone thought, based on past versions of the game and in no way related to the actual new system they'd produced, that being a "master of combat" was equivalent to being a "master of magic". Seriously. A Fighter bonus feat was weighted to be roughly on par with a level of spellcasting.
During the switch to 3.5, they focused on a bunch of other issues but never really touched this one. Paizo picked up the ball and decided that OGL compliance meant that the skills should stay relatively unchanged, so they added one new class skill and called it good.

Bolded for emphasis.

I can even see how people might have envisioned things during the laying of theoretical foundations, seriously. And still, given how fighter-like monsters (like, for example, Ogres) advance, this is kinda surprising - seeing as they do not only gain BAB and some damage, but also Reach, Strength, special attacks etc.
One of the best 3.0 Fighter tricks, the Cleave Train (Supreme cleaving through a dozen minions in one turn) can be beat by a single Fireball. One Giant or Huge Animal/Vermin of the same CR as an NPC Fighter has the same damage output, more HP, similar saves and Reach, poison, special attacks or similar things.

It should have been pretty obvious at least in Hindsight, after the publishing of 3.0. So I am kinda amazed that, instead of buffing the Fighter by making him more like a monster (with ability boosts, special class features etc.) or at least buffing his base stats they actually nerfed some of the few PrCs and combos that actually made Fighters good. I mean I can see a "master of combat" - but that guy would have to be able to become something like a nearly immovable object or a nearly unstoppable force, basically.

All pretty academic, though. I personally even think excessive niche protection is bad, or rather that blurring niches and being able to customize characters heavily is one of the best things about 3E. Hmmm.

[Auron3991]

If you look at the original 3.5 core, they state that a raging barbarian is about equal in combat to a fighter (I'm guessing they playtested somewhere), which is why they gave the barbarian more skill points. They probably assumed blaster style gameplay for arcane casters (which is why they assumed the fact they are about as sturdy as wet tissue paper to be a balancing factor) and they probably assumed mostly healbot for divine castors. For a specific style of gameplay, they probably did balance it. The problem they have with balancing is that players are bound to get creative. You can see more of a focus on balance in 4e but, even then, tiers ended up happening.

[Deophaun]

If you look at the original 3.5 core, they state that a raging barbarian is about equal in combat to a fighter (I'm guessing they playtested somewhere), which is why they gave the barbarian more skill points. They probably assumed blaster style gameplay for arcane casters (which is why they assumed the fact they are about as sturdy as wet tissue paper to be a balancing factor) and they probably assumed mostly healbot for divine castors. For a specific style of gameplay, they probably did balance it. The problem they have with balancing is that players are bound to get creative. You can see more of a focus on balance in 4e but, even then, tiers ended up happening.

I believe there's a record of the 3.x playtest where they admit the druid playtester never used wild shape.

And 4e tiers tended to happen because of variations in level of support, not design. The Seeker hasn't gotten any powers for four years? Better add some new Wizard Dailies in the next Dragon issue, then.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Given that the fighter is supposed to be able to model knights, samurai, and similar noble warrior classes, it's absolutely no stretch to give them a skill list and skill points appropriate for such a role.

The funny part for me is that OA Samurai, which is similar to Fighter, has 4+Int and a better skill list (although their bonus feat list is worse).

[Ssalarn]

And 4e tiers tended to happen because of variations in level of support, not design. The Seeker hasn't gotten any powers for four years? Better add some new Wizard Dailies in the next Dragon issue, then.

For real. A few dozen classes and only like 6 of them get regular updates and expansion? I smell Hasbro's blatant commercialism....

I believe there's a record of the 3.x playtest where they admit the druid playtester never used wild shape.

I believe it. Tied in to that idea is one of the reasons I was actually really glad to see Mark Seifter join the Paizo team; he was a PFS player and pretty talented power-gamer, so he was more familiar with some of the playstyles that have become more common as the game has aged. It's somewhat telling when the design team still thinks that the monk's unarmed strike needs to be tightly controlled because it can't be disarmed or taken from him, or the Rogue gets 1/day talents because there's a worry about making him too OP....

On the flipside, Paizo did run a pretty extensive playtest (or at least as extensive as they had time for) before releasing the CRB, and some stuff was missed in the open playtest, other stuff was caught but no one had a suggestion for how to fix it before the book had to be on shelves, and other things were a victim of philosophical differences. The Paizo staff now knows the Rogue and Monk need fixing and they're putting out a book to address it; I don't think that the senior members of the design team, or at least Jason Buhlman and James Jacobs, really believe still that there is an issue with the Fighter. I could be wrong, but that's kind of the impression I've gotten over the years of hearing/seeing them talk and post about the game. There's this kind of weird disconnect that's grown with all of the freelancers and splatbooks and such that have been added to the system, and the innate imbalance that it inherited from previous editions, where classes are more and more balanced against other classes than against the system itself, to the point that classes that would have seemed completely busted stacked against a new system are just kind of given a pass. It's like World of Warcraft before they homogenized all the classes, where PvE balance was almost universally a secondary consideration to PvP balance. It's weird, but it is what it is at this point.

[Brookshw]

The funny part for me is that OA Samurai, which is similar to Fighter, has 4+Int and a better skill list (although their bonus feat list is worse).

Well yeah, need those extra skill points for the obligatory ranks in calligraphy and tea ceremony

[Kioran]

If you look at the original 3.5 core, they state that a raging barbarian is about equal in combat to a fighter (I'm guessing they playtested somewhere), which is why they gave the barbarian more skill points. They probably assumed blaster style gameplay for arcane casters (which is why they assumed the fact they are about as sturdy as wet tissue paper to be a balancing factor) and they probably assumed mostly healbot for divine castors. For a specific style of gameplay, they probably did balance it. The problem they have with balancing is that players are bound to get creative. You can see more of a focus on balance in 4e but, even then, tiers ended up happening.

That is kinda funny and sad at the same time, especially the thing with the Druid tester never once wild shaping. Of course people will test the intent first and might not even come up with creative ways to break the system. And yeah. I even found that eschewing some of the most egregious abuses (No Tippy Wizards, no full-blown CoDzilla etc.) via gentleman's agreement significantly improved my group's enjoyment of the game.

Still, I think that was some serious confirmation bias - and besides, if experience with 3E showed something, then that it is far better to have a class with enough potential power that it can be slightly OP than to have a class that literally CANNOT be built into something really good. Ideally they'd all be Tier 3-4, but a Tier 2 class (which can be built as a Tier 3) is better than a Tier 5 that cannot be lifted from its quagmire.

As for the raging barbarian - him doing the same damage as the fighter is somewhat true in Core (with Weapon specialization and Focus almost mirroring the extra damage from the +4 Strength - although +1 attack and +2 damage are not quite a match for +2/+3), but given ways to attack more often at max BAB and getting a better damage multiplier, the Barbarian in my experience actually does more damage.
It would be a different story if fighting styles aside from 2-handed weapons were competitive. The fighter is actually better at those. AFAIK they originally thought most Fighters would go sword&board, too.

[Auron3991]

I think they also thought fighters and the like would better benefit from the magic item system (wizards can't do much with a +2 medium fortification plate mail).

[Ssalarn]

I think they also thought fighters and the like would better benefit from the magic item system (wizards can't do much with a +2 medium fortification plate mail).

The problem, of course, is that Fighters are reliant on magic items to stay competitive, whereas wizards have the freedom to shop around and customize their inventory of items to complement their spells and powers. So Fighters have to pour their wealth into swords and armor and shields just to maintain their ability to do what they do, while casters are basically free to spend that money on whatever they want. Gold for a Fighter is a pair of water wings, keeping him afloat. Gold for a Wizard is a key to a world of infinite possibilities.

[ZamielVanWeber]

And to make matters worse just in core there are options for a wizard to bypass the downsides of armor if they want (A&EG added more and even more came out with alternate materials, feycraft/githcraft). Magic items have just been more generous to wizards.

[Honest Tiefling]

This is probably why is is very difficult to find a character in very well-known fiction or myths that could be modeled as a fighter without a crazy template.

[Flickerdart]

Magic items have just been more generous to wizards.

What? A wizard without magic items is a wizard. A fighter without magic items is a dragon snack.

[eggynack]

What? A wizard without magic items is a wizard. A fighter without magic items is a dragon snack.

Both statements are kinda true, I think. Items tend to help fighters more than wizards, by sheer dint of the fact that those items are probably worth more than the fighter itself across a reasonable level range, and because fighters just can't do certain things without items, but on the other side, fighters don't really have much in the way of abilities that can be improved by items. They mostly just get a set of generic items that anyone can use, while wizards get all of that cool magic boosting stuff, like metamagic rods and whatnot. Thus, the objective value of wizard items is probably higher than the objective value of fighter items, while the value of those items relative to base power is significantly higher for fighters.

[Eldariel]

Much like there has to be an auto-attacking melee character in a MOBA...

Why would this be a requirement? There are many more interesting ways to build melee characters than auto-attacking and the whole concept of auto-attack is a somewhat senseless, poorly aged mechanic. Take LoL for example: Lee Sin, Zed and Yasuo are the most popular melee champions by quite a wide margin and while they utilize auto attacks, their gameplay is anything but and they could be designed without the whole mechanic in the game. I posit there's absolutely no need for a character whose only function is just to auto attack; the same role can be filled by a simple ability user too. Fundamentally nothing about auto attack as a concept is necessary or even necessarily well-designed. Garen is an extremely basic champion and he'd function perfectly fine if he didn't even have an auto attack; just the Q strike and spin. Adjust the cooldowns so that he can keep hitting people or give him a secondary hit ability and you've just made a superbasic melee character with no auto attack and no need for it.

Same could be said for D&D and "normal attack". It simply doesn't need to exist: it is a poor portrayal of melee combat (and ranged combat for that matter) since melee combat just isn't as simple as that, and the only function it really fills is modelling things that could be modeled with a number of other systems or styles too. Generic "just attack"-action is fine for a game that doesn't get nitty gritty in combat but D&D's ruleset is all about combat so it could afford to get more specific there. Especially what comes to PC classes who are supposed to be the top of the line at what they do, building a class that only has a single basic action that's available to everyone and is merely slightly better at it than others is almost an insult. And yes, some people like simplicity but y'know, "standard attack class" isn't the only way to make a simple combatant class.

Also, I think Barbarian is much better suited for the role of "a simple martial beginner class" than Fighter: Fighter is supposed to be the skilled master warrior while Barbarian is the primal instinctual, animalistic warrior. It makes no sense for Fighter's melee combat to be simple since it's supposed to be all about being better at it than any beast or man you might face, while a Barbarian simply overpowers her enemies. It's simple enough to enable some gameplay while still keeping it simple there but again, that does not require a basic attack action of any kind. And even if it does exist, that does not require focusing the class around said action; it can get a small complement of different specialized attacks and an example build for new players who want plug'n'play and you have the role covered without any of the warrior-degrading classes like Fighter do.

[Blackhawk748]

The funny part for me is that OA Samurai, which is similar to Fighter, has 4+Int and a better skill list (although their bonus feat list is worse).

The list is different, i wouldnt call it worse, though some of the Clan ones are definitely worse, but you get a Mstwrk Katana at lvl 1 and the ability to enchant it as you increase in level. In short you just got Ancestral Relic for free, which is quite nifty.

[georgie_leech]

Both statements are kinda true, I think. Items tend to help fighters more than wizards, by sheer dint of the fact that those items are probably worth more than the fighter itself across a reasonable level range, and because fighters just can't do certain things without items, but on the other side, fighters don't really have much in the way of abilities that can be improved by items. They mostly just get a set of generic items that anyone can use, while wizards get all of that cool magic boosting stuff, like metamagic rods and whatnot. Thus, the objective value of wizard items is probably higher than the objective value of fighter items, while the value of those items relative to base power is significantly higher for fighters.

In an extreme example, 1+2 is a bigger percent increase than 100+100.

[Zarrgon]

I am really amazed that none of the major publishers seem to share my opinion, especially given that the flavour/background of Soldiers, mercenaries or other Fighter backgrounds (Viking Sailors?) could actually use some rounding out with skill points...

Am I being crazy here?

It is amazing. I'll I can figure is everyone at all the publishers are around 30+, and when they think of ''fighter'' they are thinking of the 1E/2E fighter. It was a very different game back then. A 1E fighter was powerful compared to the other classes. Even the wizard. Though the fighter had less, no skills and no feats. ( No other classes had them either) But wizards had way less spells, and the spells were simple and direct.

[Deophaun]

What? A wizard without magic items is a wizard. A fighter without magic items is a dragon snack.

System still benefits wizards.

If a fighter wants a useful defending weapon, he has to spend 8,000 gp for the base ability, then exponentially more for every additional plus.

If a wizard wants a useful defending weapon, he has to spend 8,000 gp for the base ability, then cast greater magic weapon when he wakes up in the morning, saving him over sixty thousand gp versus the fighter that he goes and spends on metamagic rods.

Similar deal with armor, only the wizard never has to worry about a maximum dex bonus.

[Kioran]

Why would this be a requirement? There are many more interesting ways to build melee characters than auto-attacking and the whole concept of auto-attack is a somewhat senseless, poorly aged mechanic. Take LoL for example: Lee Sin, Zed and Yasuo are the most popular melee champions by quite a wide margin and while they utilize auto attacks, their gameplay is anything but and they could be designed without the whole mechanic in the game. I posit there's absolutely no need for a character whose only function is just to auto attack; the same role can be filled by a simple ability user too. Fundamentally nothing about auto attack as a concept is necessary or even necessarily well-designed. Garen is an extremely basic champion and he'd function perfectly fine if he didn't even have an auto attack; just the Q strike and spin. Adjust the cooldowns so that he can keep hitting people or give him a secondary hit ability and you've just made a superbasic melee character with no auto attack and no need for it.

Same could be said for D&D and "normal attack". It simply doesn't need to exist: it is a poor portrayal of melee combat (and ranged combat for that matter) since melee combat just isn't as simple as that, and the only function it really fills is modelling things that could be modeled with a number of other systems or styles too. Generic "just attack"-action is fine for a game that doesn't get nitty gritty in combat but D&D's ruleset is all about combat so it could afford to get more specific there. Especially what comes to PC classes who are supposed to be the top of the line at what they do, building a class that only has a single basic action that's available to everyone and is merely slightly better at it than others is almost an insult. And yes, some people like simplicity but y'know, "standard attack class" isn't the only way to make a simple combatant class.

Also, I think Barbarian is much better suited for the role of "a simple martial beginner class" than Fighter: Fighter is supposed to be the skilled master warrior while Barbarian is the primal instinctual, animalistic warrior. It makes no sense for Fighter's melee combat to be simple since it's supposed to be all about being better at it than any beast or man you might face, while a Barbarian simply overpowers her enemies. It's simple enough to enable some gameplay while still keeping it simple there but again, that does not require a basic attack action of any kind. And even if it does exist, that does not require focusing the class around said action; it can get a small complement of different specialized attacks and an example build for new players who want plug'n'play and you have the role covered without any of the warrior-degrading classes like Fighter do.

I actually disagree to some extent. Aside from the fact that Yasuo and Zed are not really melee (much like, say, Rumble), they are ressourceless with low CD abilities that allow them to farm or harass like a ranged champion - the game needs a Garen or something like the old AD Sion simply for diversity. I find the crude, inelegant way of fighting interesting, and the game needs it because its a counter-strategy to wave clear. A champion that can take a lot of damage and deal out a lot of damage against slow or immobile target, like towers, mages etc.
Besides - playing Garen or something at a high level is actually harder than Lee Sin or Nidalee or what have you, since you do not have crazy mobility to save you from your own mistakes.

That said, and back to D&D - having a basic attack system with some maneuvers that everyone can use is a good thing. Because the alternative is 4th edition, where every character constantly uses pre-defined special attacks (even using at-will abilities instead of normal attacks). While that is certainly more interesting in the beginning, it doesn't really do much for the characters in the long term, since it also makes every character pretty much locked in by his build.
Having specific support for every conceivable role means, on the flip-side, that any role without specific support cannot be played. If, say, a furious attack that drives the opponent back is a Class XY at-will power it also means that another character or NPC without the class power cannot do this. I know many people love a D&D full of Yasuos and Mr. YIKUUs. That's 4E - and it makes a really nice tactical boardgame or tactical RPG. I like 3rd Edition mostly because its a very non setting and theme-specific Fantasy RPG - it uses the grid, but it's only 80% fighting and allows a bit more latitude in terms of genre and theme.

And if the RPG is supposed to be more generalist, not as specific, it's vital to keep as much as possible of the "cool stuff" outside the class-specific envelope. And also to keep a few archetypical classes (the original 4: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard) that can be picked as basic: When you want to play role X, and don't know what exactly to pick, when in doubt, play the archetype class.

The Fighter is not a good archetype class because just about everyone else got more options. The Casters get more spells, and the Rogue gets sneak attack, which is both stronger and more versatile than AD&D'S backstab, seeing as it does more damage at higher levels and can be triggered not only from flanking(if the enemy is actually attacking the other guy and thus turning his back)/sneaking but also by Feints, invisibility etc.
Theoretically, the fighter can use maneuvers like Bull rush, disarm, Sunder etc. - but aside from trip cheese (filthy, filthy cheese that also makes combat devolve into something very goofy and undignified with half the combatants flopping around on the ground like fish), none of these options really work. Sundering costs the loot the character is dependant on (or is a waste of time otherwise), bull-rush and Grapple usually don't work because many monsters are large or have massive strength which the Fighter does not etc.

Basically, a buff to the fighter class should enable the class to fight using mostly basic attacks and the generic combat maneuvers also because those need to no flavor text to accompany them - and you can make up your own. A generic "master of combat" could be a classical fantasy Knight, a hard-bitten mercenary, a Viking, a mongol rider (including recurved bow) etc.

A class that uses special attacks could not reach that level of generalization you would need for the catch-all class - which the fighter should be.