Returning the Fighter to relevance.

[Cosi]

No one enjoys having toys taken away, but nerfing a wizard to make fighter relevant can be effective.

No, it can't. The Fighter doesn't (just) suck because the Wizard (actually, the Cleric) is better at his job. He sucks because he isn't good enough. It's like you need to be a seven and the Fighter is a two. Sure, maybe the Wizard is a ten, but making him a six would make the Fighter any less a two.

Spellcasters could no longer be effective as fighters, since self-buffing strategies waste most spells and have high uncertainty in effect.

No they don't. Gishes cast all their buffs at the beginning of the day. They can just wait till they roll well. Or instead of gishing they can summon a bunch of goons.

The above pushes towards a much more cooperative form of play where every party needs both spell sources and spell sinks to be fully effective. Obviously, it makes challenges more difficult, but not so difficult that level appropriate parties cannot deal with it.

Not really. You basically crippled the balanced Wizards (battlefield controllers) and did nothing to the broken Wizards (chain binders). Nerfing Wizard combat options is just putting up a giant sign point at planar binding.

I'm fine with options for the combat-related and basic-athetics stuff in there all being doable with the base Fighter overhaul version. My thinking is that the base Fighter should only do one thing by default: Fight. Anything else is opt-in, sacrificing insane personal combat power bit by bit to do so.

This is wrong. Forcing people to sacrifice power for flavor doesn't work. How many Acolytes of the Skin do you see? Not a whole lot, because no one is willing to give up five caster levels for some minor abilities. Similarly, no one is going to give up their Ultimate Fighting Power for the ability to lead armies. Also, the concept of one character being the best at "fighting" is bad for the game.

Combat isn't really a tiny portion of play. It's the biggest portion of all the portions.

It doesn't matter what portion of the game it is. If you balance the Fighter by making him so good at fighting it makes up for not doing anything else, that balance evaporates as soon as you try to play a game that has less (or more) combat in it. Every character needs an effective way to contribute in all the minigames.

Leading an army and being a martial combat master are 2 different things. I don't think it is a necessity for the tools that fighter should have access to. Neither social skills like bluff/diplomacy. I agree that fighter should be able judge his opponent, or do things like feint, but these abilities can easily be separated from social skills (bluff/sense motive).

Are people seriously arguing that they don't want the Fighter to have skills? That's insane. Experts have skills.

Fighter chassis is a class that focuses solely on the martial combat mastery. If you want to tag other skills for your preference, well by all means do that. But the problem with fighter is not lacking these. It is the point he fails where he should excel , a.k.a. martial combat.

No, the problem of the Fighter is that all he has is a verb: Fight. When the game calls for leading, or tracking, or discovering, or investigating, or exploring, or negotiating, he has nothing to do. That's bad, and if you can't figure out something for the Fighter to do in those situations, he should not exist.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Didn't you know, Cosi? Being incompetent is the fighter's schtick. They're all about feats, because feats are for combat, and despite all of the dozens of combat applications that skills have, skills are not feats, and therefore, skills are not for combat.

Or...something. I think?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I do kind of agree that the leader-of-men thing should be an option with the class (somehow), rather than the default. Not because it's not thematically fitting, but because it's not appropriate for every-- perhaps even most-- game, nor is it something that every player will want. Having an army instantly adds a huge amount of paperwork to your character, and instantly starts to warp the campaign around it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I do kind of agree that the leader-of-men thing should be an option with the class (somehow), rather than the default. Not because it's not thematically fitting, but because it's not appropriate for every-- perhaps even most-- game, nor is it something that every player will want. Having an army instantly adds a huge amount of paperwork to your character, and instantly starts to warp the campaign around it.

Adding social skills to the skill list (along with more skill points for those and other important skills) and Leadership as a feat option would fix this just fine. Don't want to be a leader? Then don't take the options that make you a leader.

[Cosi]

Question: What famous characters do people think of as Fighters? Conan is a Barbarian, Han Solo is a Rogue, who's a Fighter?

I do kind of agree that the leader-of-men thing should be an option with the class (somehow), rather than the default. Not because it's not thematically fitting, but because it's not appropriate for every-- perhaps even most-- game, nor is it something that every player will want. Having an army instantly adds a huge amount of paperwork to your character, and instantly starts to warp the campaign around it.

Personally, I think the game should have a better developed set of mechanics for things like "leading armies" and "running kingdoms", because those things are a big part of the source material for D&D. Also, it's a good marker for high level characters.

That said, Max is right that you could just make it optional.

[Milo v3]

Sigh.

As it stands, a Fighter can't competently do more than one, possibly two of the following with their pathetic skill-points:

Climb a cliffside
Stand watch
Administer first-aid
Navigate the wilderness
Swim
Get through an obstacle course
Swing from a chandelier
Maintain, repair or build their own gear
Ride a horse
Take care of a horse
Guess how tough their opponent is
Know what they're fighting
Not fall for a feint
Know the battlefield's terrain
Guess the enemy's tactics
Lead troops
Know the city they LIVE IN
Know politics
Be GOOD at politics

I'd expect any competent warrior-type to be able to manage AT LEAST half of those.

While I do suck at optimization, I thought I should give a shot to seeing if my I can use the existing rules + my fighter fix to meet as many of those prerequisites as reasonable while making a character from level one up outside of picking equipment. The following character does have some severe weaknesses (like flying enemies.. though he can jump at ones within 30 ft without much difficultly), but I'm assuming this character to be part of a party. So I present Doalot (who uses Pathfinder rules including Background Skills and Combat Tactics, and my Fighter fix):

Spoiler: Doalot, Guardsman of the Grand Nation - Level 1

Show

LG Human Fighter (General) 1
Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +1 Perception +5
AC 14, touch 11, flat-footed 13 (+1 dex, +3 armour)
hp 13 (1d10+3)
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +1
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Greatsword +4 (2d6+4)
Melee Combat Stamina Greatsword +5 to +7 (2d6+4)
Melee Power Attack Greatsword +3 (2d6+7)
Melee Combat Stamina Power Attack Greatsword +4 to +6 (2d6+7)
Str 17, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +1, CMB +4, CMD 15
Feats Combat Reflexes, Combat Stamina (3), Cunning, Power Attack
Traits Armor Expert, Civilized
Skills Acrobatics +5, Climb +7, Craft (Weapons) +5, Diplomacy +1 (Against people of the Grand Nation +3), Intimidate +1 (Against people of the Grand Nation +3), Knowledge (Local) +6 (Identify humanoids +8), Knowledge (Martial) +5, Knowledge (Nobility) +6, Perception +5, Profession (Soldier) +5, Ride +5, Sense Motive +2, Swim +7, Knowledge (Identify creatures with unlisted Knowledge check) +3
Languages Common, Elven
SQ Monster Hunter (bonus to identifying monsters equal to Con Mod [this is already included above] + can use such knowledge checks untrained), Soldier’s Past (Sentinel [No benefit till 3rd level] + Use class level as ranks for Knowledge [Martial] and Profession [Soldier])
Combat Gear Greatsword, Parade Armour Other Gear Backpack, Bedroll, Belt Pouch, Boardgame (6 gp), Flint and Steel, Iron Pot, Light Horse, Mess Kit, Riding Saddle, Rope, Sap, Soldier’s Uniform, Torches (10), Trail Rations (5 days), Waterskin.

Spoiler: Squire Doalot - Level 5

Show

LG Human Fighter (General) 5
Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +1 Perception +11
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+1 dex, +6 armour, +1 deflection)
hp 47 (5d10+15)
Fort +7, Ref +6, Will +3 (+4 against mind-affecting effects)
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 Greatsword +8 (2d6+8)
Melee Combat Stamina +1 Greatsword +9 to +12 (2d6+8)
Melee Power Attack +1 Greatsword +6 (2d6+14)
Melee Combat Stamina Power Attack +1 Greatsword +7 to +10 (2d6+14)
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +5, CMB +9 (+10 with Heavy Blades), CMD 20 (21 against Heavy Blades)
Feats Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training [Diplomacy/Ride]), Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Combat Stamina (7), Cunning, Improved Bravery, Inspiring Bravery, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Traits Armor Expert, Civilized
Skills Acrobatics +9, Climb +12, Craft (Armour) +9, Craft (Weapons) +9, Diplomacy +9 (Against military +11), Intimidate +1 (Against military +3), Knowledge (Local) +10 (Identifying humanoids +12), Knowledge (Martial) +9, Knowledge (Nobility) +9, Perception +11, Profession (Soldier) +9, Ride +9, Survival +9, Sense Motive +8, Swim +12, Knowledge (identifying creatures with an unlisted knowledge skill) +3
Languages Common, Elven
SQ

• Adaptive Training (Faster retraining of bonus feats)
• Armour Training 1 (reduce ACP & increase max dex, move at normal speed in medium armour)
• Bravery (+1 on saves against mind-affecting effects & grants same benefit to allies within 30 ft.)
• Combat Mobility (Can take ten-foot steps instead of five-foot steps)
• Experienced Armourer (Military stuff worth 500 gp or less is bought at 90% of normal price)
• Military Reputation (Gains a bonus equal to ½ class level on cha checks against creatures with at least one rank in Profession (Soldier) or an official rank in the military of a country)
• Monster Hunter (bonus to identifying monsters equal to Con Mod [this is already included above] + can use such knowledge checks untrained)
• Soldier’s Past (Sentinel [Alertness] + Use class level as ranks for Knowledge [Martial] and Profession [Soldier])
• Weapon Training 1 (Heavy Blades)(Gains +1 to Attack & Damage rolls with Heavy Blades and with Combat Maneuvers involving those weapons)

Combat Gear +1 Greatsword, +1 Glamoured Kikko, Cloak of Resistance +1, Ring of Protection +1 Other Gear Board Game (10 gp), Boots of the Cat, Combat Trained Light Horse, Fighter’s Kit, Mwk Artisan’s Tools (Armour), Mwk Artisan’s Tools (Weapons), Soldier’s Outfit, 31 gp

Spoiler: Sir Doalot - Level 10

Show

LG Human Fighter (General) 10
Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +2 Perception +24
AC 23, touch 14, flat-footed 21 (+2 dex, +1 natural, +2 deflection, +8 armour)
Hp 89 (10d10+30)
Fort +12, Ref +12, Will +7 (+9 against sleep and charm effects)(+11 against mind-affecting effects)
Speed 40 ft., climb 10 ft (Climb DC 20 and lower surfaces only)
Melee +2 Adamantine Greatsword +20/+15 (2d6+11)
Melee Combat Stamina +2 Adamantine Greatsword +21 to +25/+16 to +20 (2d6+11)
Melee Power Attack +2 Adamantine Greatsword +17/+12 (2d6+20)
Melee Combat Stamina Power Attack +2 Adamantine Greatsword +18 to +22/+12 to +16 (2d6+20)
Str 21, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +10/+5, CMB +15, CMD 27
Feats Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training [Diplomacy/Ride]), Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Cut from the Air, Combat Stamina (12), Cunning, Difficult Swings, Improved Bravery, Inspiring Bravery, Measure Foe, Power Attack, Spellcut, Street Smarts, Uncanny Alertness, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Traits Armor Expert, Civilized
Skills Acrobatics 15 (+24 for jumping), Bluff +14 (Against military +19), Climb +18, Craft (Armour) +9, Craft (Weapons) +9, Diplomacy +14 (Against military +19), Heal +11, Intimidate +14, Knowledge (Local) +19 (identifying humanoids +21), Knowledge (Martial) +14, Knowledge (Nobility) +15, Perception +24, Profession (Soldier) +14, Ride +15, Sense Motive +19, Survival 14, Swim +18
Languages Common, Dwarven, Elven
SQ

• Adaptive Training (Faster retraining of combat feats)
• Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training [Bluff, Intimidate])
• Armour Training 2 (reduce ACP & increase max dex, move at normal speed in armour)
• Bravery (+4 on saves against mind-affecting effects & grants same benefit to allies within 30 ft.)
• Climb Skill Unlock (Isn’t denied Dex while climbing)
• Combat Mobility (Can take ten-foot steps instead of five-foot steps)
• Experienced Armourer (Military stuff worth 2,000 gp or less is bought at 90% of normal price)
• Military Reputation (Gains a bonus equal to ½ class level on cha checks against creatures with at least one rank in Profession (Soldier) or an official rank in the military of a country)
• Monster Hunter (bonus to identifying monsters equal to Con Mod + can use such knowledge checks untrained)
• Old Allies (Able to create contacts)
• Soldier’s Past (Sentinel [Alertness/Uncanny Alertness] + Use class level as ranks for Knowledge [Martial] and Profession [Soldier])
• Weapon Training 2 (Heavy Blades)(Gains +2 to Attack & Damage rolls with Heavy Blades and with Combat Maneuvers involving those weapons)

Combat Gear +2 Adamantine Greatsword, +2 Glamered Mountain Pattern, Amulet of Natural Armour +1, Belt of Physical Might (Str/Dex) +2, Boots of Striding and Springing, Cloak of Resistance +3, Eyes of the Eagle, Headband of Vast Intelligence +2, Kyton Ring, Monster Almanac (not included in stats above), Ring of Protection +2, Sash of the War Champion
Other Gear All Tool’s Vest, Combat Trained Heavy Horse, Cure Moderate Wounds Potions (4), Fighter’s Kit, 192 gp

Note on Soldier's Past
Soldier's Past for Doalot is set to be Sentinel because of his Guardsman origins, which gives him the feats Alertness and Uncanny Alertness, but the ability can be changed with a week's work to instead give a different set of feats from a selection or give the benefits of a Variant Multiclass (without having to spend feats). For example Doalot temporarily changes to the Artisan option of Soldier's Past when he wants to craft something, as it grants him mastercraftsman. He can also do things like get rage, bardic music/knowledge, wizard school powers, increased intimidation prowess, hexes, familiar's, or bloodlines.

It should succeed on all of the parameters except maybe "Know the battlefield's terrain", which was abit vague of a task.

[Keltest]

Question: What famous characters do people think of as Fighters? Conan is a Barbarian, Han Solo is a Rogue, who's a Fighter?

I mentioned it earlier, but Hercules/Heracles. Perseus. King Arthur and his Knights. Achilles. Lots of greek heroes, actually.

[Morphic tide]

Then you are asking for a crappy fighter as the default fighter. Simple as that. (And to me your perspective of "Concepts described in the default fluff of the class shouldn't be able to be done without external stuff like variants" is rather strange. You shouldn't need to use variants to get the default fluff of the class).

Yes, but having the army stuff in the base class leaves dead class features for some builds. Which is very bad. And a lot of stuff that can be used to lead armies fits as feats. Which Fighter has a handy framework for Fighter exclusive feats. If you really want army leading in Fighters, write up feats. The core 3.5 Fighter is made with the assumption that the feats can fill in for class features, so make that happen. Make feats that have the role of class features that aren't about direct personal combat. Seriously, there are two Soulknife-as-feats posts on these forums that I've seen. An entire class, reduced to a set of not really broken feats. Badly made, probably. Still an entire class turned into a set of feats.

I have to disagree. Here's the fluff text for Fighter:


Just perusing that list, we've got several leader types: conquering overlord, bandit king, and even knights generally had their own private armies that they were expected to lead into battle. "Champion" implies some kind of inspirational figure rather than just someone of extreme violence; soldiers, mercenaries, and guards all belong to a military or paramilitary organization with rank based on merit. Good soldiers get promoted into commanders, good commanders get made into generals. It's a very natural, logical, and realistic transition for any militaristic character. The fact that there is no clean way to play that transition and have it reflected on your character sheet is a problem. Leading men into battle is not quite the same skill as fighting in it, but the two aren't uncorrelated. Focusing on one is not necessarily to the detriment of the other.

Now if Marshal were a Fighter PrC, in core, that would be one thing. But it's a weird base class from a weird book. If you're going to keep putting Fighter in the core rulebook of every edition and not Marshal, then the Fighter needs to at least have the option of doing this very basic and intuitive thing that you would expect a Fighter to do.

Again, core, base Fighter should be all about Fighting and 3.5 Fighter was made to have feats replace class features. Make Fighter feats to make them good at army leading and you have what you need. Also, I'm fine with army support in the base class as long as it is in features that can apply to solo combat. What I'm saying is that the core of Fighter is fighting, so nothing in the base class should not support personal fighting power.

A class that only has options in combat is a class that can only interact with a tiny portion of play IMO. I see no reason some players should basically just leave the table just because there is no fight currently happening.

When I say Fighters should Fight, I'm talking similar to how Bards should Diplomance. In both cases you should be able to build into other options, but you won't be as overwhelmingly supreme as if you focused on the class features supporting those options.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yes, but having the army stuff in the base class leaves dead class features for some builds.

So, some class skills and some optional feats which the fighter doesn't have to take anyway? Not much of a loss, if you have other options to take instead.

Which is very bad.

No it's not. Very few classes have so few class skills that they are forced to max them all out and have to cross-class instead, and no character can take every feat, even a fighter.

And a lot of stuff that can be used to lead armies fits as feats.

And skills, which is exactly what I've been suggesting for awhile now.

Which Fighter has a handy framework for Fighter exclusive feats.

Or just use the feats we've already got. Like Leadership. And Landlord.

If you really want army leading in Fighters, write up feats.

Like Leadership, maybe? And Landlord? You know, the feats I've been talking about that work perfectly for this? Give them the [fighter] tag. Add some skill points and allow the fighter to choose his class skills. Done. At least, to fill this role, which should be only one role of many he should be able to fill, even on the one character..

The core 3.5 Fighter is made with the assumption that the feats can fill in for class features, so make that happen. Make feats that have the role of class features that aren't about direct personal combat. Seriously, there are two Soulknife-as-feats posts on these forums that I've seen. An entire class, reduced to a set of not really broken feats. Badly made, probably. Still an entire class turned into a set of feats.

Again, core, base Fighter should be all about Fighting and 3.5 Fighter was made to have feats replace class features. Make Fighter feats to make them good at army leading and you have what you need. Also, I'm fine with army support in the base class as long as it is in features that can apply to solo combat. What I'm saying is that the core of Fighter is fighting, so nothing in the base class should not support personal fighting power.

Make the fighter-only feats like modular class features which are much more potent than most feats, and yes, this works. All fighters ought to have a few staples, however. War-lored is a good one, for instance, that any fighter can use, no matter his desired characterization and intended warrior archetype. Even with that, a massive skill boost is still a needed thing. If you want to keep the fighter chassis basically the same (except kill all those dead levels, damnit!), then start adding chasers onto other feats, such as Dodge scaling, adding an immediate action 5' step, AND adding Tumble as a class skill, with an extra skill point per level that can only be invested in that skill. And this is one of the weaker, lower level [fighter] feats we'd need to write up.

Regular feats aren't worth their weight in class features, so we need to make sure these ARE.

When I say Fighters should Fight, I'm talking similar to how Bards should Diplomance. In both cases you should be able to build into other options, but you won't be as overwhelmingly supreme as if you focused on the class features supporting those options.

Diplomacy (and lots of other skills) isn't and shouldn't be bard-exclusive. It could easily be part of the fighter package, as demanding concessions from foes you've beaten is part and parcel of being a warrior, especially for a noble-born knight. So give it to players as an option. If it doesn't fit their character, make sure they have enough options to choose from so they don't need to take it if they don't want, while still feeling good about making the choice.

Your character has "fighter" written on his character sheet, but unless you're going for the blandest of stereotypes, "fighter" merely defines what mechanics he uses. To himself, his family, his friends, and his enemies, he's a noble, or a duelist, or a swashbuckling ladies' man, or a knight errant, or a samurai, or the biggest thug on the block, or a warlord, or a repentent criminal trying to escape his past, or even several at once.

"Fighter" is just mechanics. It's the designers' jobs to make sure that it can be used to build actual people, and the fighter class fails seriously hard.

[Morphic tide]

So, some class skills and some optional feats which the fighter doesn't have to take anyway? Not much of a loss, if you have other options to take instead.

No it's not. Very few classes have so few class skills that they are forced to max them all out and have to cross-class instead, and no character can take every feat, even a fighter.

And skills, which is exactly what I've been suggesting for awhile now.

Or just use the feats we've already got. Like Leadership. And Landlord.

Like Leadership, maybe? And Landlord? You know, the feats I've been talking about that work perfectly for this? Give them the [fighter] tag. Add some skill points and allow the fighter to choose his class skills. Done. At least, to fill this role, which should be only one role of many he should be able to fill, even on the one character..

Make the fighter-only feats like modular class features which are much more potent than most feats, and yes, this works. All fighters ought to have a few staples, however. War-lored is a good one, for instance, that any fighter can use, no matter his desired characterization and intended warrior archetype. Even with that, a massive skill boost is still a needed thing. If you want to keep the fighter chassis basically the same (except kill all those dead levels, damnit!), then start adding chasers onto other feats, such as Dodge scaling, adding an immediate action 5' step, AND adding Tumble as a class skill, with an extra skill point per level that can only be invested in that skill. And this is one of the weaker, lower level [fighter] feats we'd need to write up.

Regular feats aren't worth their weight in class features, so we need to make sure these ARE.

Diplomacy (and lots of other skills) isn't and shouldn't be bard-exclusive. It could easily be part of the fighter package, as demanding concessions from foes you've beaten is part and parcel of being a warrior, especially for a noble-born knight. So give it to players as an option. If it doesn't fit their character, make sure they have enough options to choose from so they don't need to take it if they don't want, while still feeling good about making the choice.

Your character has "fighter" written on his character sheet, but unless you're going for the blandest of stereotypes, "fighter" merely defines what mechanics he uses. To himself, his family, his friends, and his enemies, he's a noble, or a duelist, or a swashbuckling ladies' man, or a knight errant, or a samurai, or the biggest thug on the block, or a warlord, or a repentent criminal trying to escape his past, or even several at once.

"Fighter" is just mechanics. It's the designers' jobs to make sure that it can be used to build actual people, and the fighter class fails seriously hard.

The reason I mentioned Bards Diplomancing is because they are the best at it in core. They can do other things well, but not as well as they Diplomance. Giving those feats you mentioned the [Fighter] tag (which I expect to be either splat or third party shorthand for Fighter bonus feats because it isn't on the SRD I use, which seems to be core only) is fine for me. Just don't stick things that can't be useful in solo combat to the base class. Stuff that is useful in solo combat but also leading armies, fine. Stuff that is useful in solo combat and diplomacy, first, HOW, second, that's pushing it for me.

Adding class skill that can be ignored? Sure. Adding skill points? Fine. Int synergy? Also fine, because several good Fighter feats are locked behind Int prerequisites already. As for class skill pick, that's more a general fix than anything else. 3-5 skills to pick for a character to treat as class skills at all levels is a sort of thing that is a useful general fix, not just a Fighter fix.

[Hal0Badger]

Are people seriously arguing that they don't want the Fighter to have skills? That's insane. Experts have skills.

No, I do not argue that he should not have skills: More skill points, several other skill like balance, tumble etc., maybe even extra use of skills, skill tricks. All can be a part of the fighter. However, asking why don't have diplomacy, or demanding they should have, is not matching with presented chassis. If you find the chassis (pure martial-combat master) lacking even in concept, by all means, go change it as you wish. But having a class solely focusing on that actually satisfies a portion of the game. Someone wishes to build a true master of martial-combat? Going full fighter should be an option. Someone wants to improve their martial capabilities, while letting other abilities a bit behind?? They should get some fighter levels in their build (rogue 4/fighter 2 for example).

Adding socials skills changes the chassis. It is not a bad thing, however you should realize what you are doing is getting the class out of his intended role. Personally, I would go redoing Marshals for general/warlord approach.

Disclaimer though: I agree within the given situation, Fighter class cannot even perform his intended role.

No, the problem of the Fighter is that all he has is a verb: Fight. When the game calls for leading, or tracking, or discovering, or investigating, or exploring, or negotiating, he has nothing to do. That's bad, and if you can't figure out something for the Fighter to do in those situations, he should not exist.

Disagree. Class gives away those skills/abilities, to excel at martial-combat situations. Problem is, he gives away those abilities, yet cannot meet the "martial-combat master" tag. His focus on combat it lacking, or bloated with numbers. As an example, doing triple digit damages with a mainly fighter class is not that hard, due the inflation of numbers. But a fighter has very limited tactical option aside from "just attacking". There are no useful maneuvers against larger opponent than yourself for example. A few feats tags some disables to your attacks, however they are tied behind large amount of feat taxes.

You might not like a focused class, and on that I understand, but I see no reason why they should not exist.

[Hal0Badger]

Question: What famous characters do people think of as Fighters? Conan is a Barbarian, Han Solo is a Rogue, who's a Fighter?

Zaknafein Do'urden comes to mind.

I am pretty sure Conan is mixture of Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter, as it is represented in the books.

I would like to say Solomon Kane, but he is probably a multi-class as well.

If we go to anime section, Roronoa Zoro would be one, but since the extra-ordinary feats he shows, it is closer to a Warblade I guess.

Guts from Berserk, is definetely a pure fighter at least a good majority of the story (I kinda stopped reading after a point).

[Cosi]

However, asking why don't have diplomacy, or demanding they should have, is not matching with presented chassis. If you find the chassis (pure martial-combat master) lacking even in concept, by all means, go change it as you wish. But having a class solely focusing on that actually satisfies a portion of the game. Someone wishes to build a true master of martial-combat? Going full fighter should be an option.

Combat and non-combat are different parts of the game. If you allow people to trade combat power for non-combat power (or vice versa), you are breaking the game. Full stop. The concept of "only has combat abilities" is broken, without ever looking at the implementation you suggest.

Adding socials skills changes the chassis. It is not a bad thing, however you should realize what you are doing is getting the class out of his intended role. Personally, I would go redoing Marshals for general/warlord approach.

But his intended role is bad for the game. It breaks the game the second the DM tweaks the ratio of combat to non-combat encounters, and it gives the Fighter an incentive to respond to any social situation by smashing things until it turns into a combat situation.

You might not like a focused class, and on that I understand, but I see no reason why they should not exist.

Because they destroy game balance, and they don't add anything to the game. Don't want to to stuff outside combat? Great, just don't use your abilities. Don't demand that everyone whose character concept is Hercules or Solomon Kane not have abilities to use.

[Lans]

A class that only has options in combat is a class that can only interact with a tiny portion of play IMO. I see no reason some players should basically just leave the table just because there is no fight currently happening.

I think there are enough nonclass resources, that a character can cover a lot of noncombat options with them if the class resources can cover the combat options.

Edit- for example a collection of masterwork tools, and magical skill enhancers probably costs less than upping a magical sword to the next level.

[Hal0Badger]

Combat and non-combat are different parts of the game. If you allow people to trade combat power for non-combat power (or vice versa), you are breaking the game. Full stop. The concept of "only has combat abilities" is broken, without ever looking at the implementation you suggest.

No you are not breaking anything. Full stop.

Seriously, skills have other uses as well, they can be used to traverse obstacles out of combat. Just because you lack social skills, it does not mean that character is *broken* in any sense.

I would add several knowledge skills to identify monsters, more athletic skills like balance/tumble, maybe spot/listen as well. But demanding diplomacy to be part of it, does not cut into the chassis, whether you like it or not. If you intend to change chassis, that something different, and can be done with other classes or PRC that focuses on that part. For example, being a general is good PRC in my eyes.

As a side-note, I use intimidation as my social skill with a fighter base, but that's my preference, and might not be a good substitute.

But his intended role is bad for the game. It breaks the game the second the DM tweaks the ratio of combat to non-combat encounters, and it gives the Fighter an incentive to respond to any social situation by smashing things until it turns into a combat situation.

No it does not, at all. Not every class should contribute to the every given situation, especially specialized characters. If you do not trade something for specialization, than what is the point of playing a jack of all trades character?

Besides, in 3.5, combat is a major part.

Because they destroy game balance, and they don't add anything to the game. Don't want to to stuff outside combat? Great, just don't use your abilities. Don't demand that everyone whose character concept is Hercules or Solomon Kane not have abilities to use.

If you are not playing that concepts, pick something else? I mean, if I wanted to play a rogue like, silver tongue character, I would pick a different class. If a character has multiple of that concepts, it means it is a multi-class. If that character excel in every given abilities, for example both being a silver tongue and very good martial-combat master, it means he is high level character.

I do not see, how specialized classes breaks anything.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's not terribly difficult to tweak the fighter class such that it has out of combat applications without forcing people to take outside-of-combat abilities. Allow fighters to use fighter bonus feats (simplified as [fighter] feats) to take things that broaden their outside-of-combat abilities in order to A.) flesh them out as actual people, and to B.) give people things to do outside of combat.

Let's take one example from the psionics system: the Psicrystal Affinity feat. Psicrystals have tons of uses, both in combat and outside of combat. They can be used as scouts, universal translators, night watch, orbital bombardment platforms, a receptical for psionic focus (useful in itself both in and out of combat), and on, and on, and on.

Similarly, the War-Lored ability is useful both in and out of combat, granting the fighter some Knowledge-mancy to utilize for strategic and tactical use, in addition to granting the party another source of non-battle information, as well. I'm sure we can think up numerous class features for fighters (that aren't feats) to take up some of those horrible dead levels.

Alternately, grant fighters even more feats to fill those dead levels with, and homebrew a metric ton of [fighter] feats to take with them, one of which could easily be War-Lored, and another could be a fitting (albeit not necessarily psionic) variation of the Psicrystal Affinity feat, or an altered version of Obtain Familiar, or even a version of the Wild Cohort feat designed for a mount and/or utility helper, though all of those should have better scaling for a non-spellcasting character (due to not being able to buff their pet/friend/mount/whatever).

[ScrambledBrains]

So, I know the OP of this thread has seemingly already gotten the information they wanted, but I figured I'd wager my two CP on this. I'm not going to approach this from a balancing standpoint, per say-My ability to balance is by no means great and I'd probably screw it up if I attempted it. I'm going to look at something a bit different, a bit easier to place: Their gameplay fantasy.

What I mean by that is that each class has its own unique vision of what someone wants to be when they pick it. When someone picks a Ranger or a Barbarian, they want to be a man/woman of the wild, either the eagle-eyed hunter and tracker or the bestial beserker. When someone picks a Samurai or a Paladin, they want to be an honor and duty bound warrior, either to a clan or to Good and Law. When someone picks a Swashbuckler or a Warblade, they want to be a charismatic fighter, either the fancy Errol Flynn type or the "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!" gladiator type. Keep in mind I'm only discussing a small fraction of classes here, but there's a narrative fantasy and gameplay fantasy associated with most, if not all of the classes. Also keep in mind that any or all of these men could still be leaders of their own squads and/or companies of troops/followers. I don't feel being a leader of men is explicitly connected to Fighters.

With that in mind, we have to take a look at the narrative and gameplay fantasy the Fighter has...which is, he doesn't. Or rather, he has these faint wisps of one offered by WOTC, but those are why he's in the position he's in in the first place: He's not specialized in a game that encourages specialization.

Therefore, what I feel a rework/houserules for the Fighter has to do is find him a niche of some description as a place to start, somewhere to begin his gameplay and narrative fantasy. And I think I've found one...the professional soldier.

What the fighter should be about is arriving at a situation, getting a quick visual of the battlefield situation and then responding appropriately, the guy with the gear for any situation and the tactical know-how to use it, combined with the calm and calculating ability to know when to use it. This isn't to say they can't be charismatic in their place or have other skills of some description(heck, most professional soldiers are also skilled in a few things besides their chosen profession), but this is, I feel, a good place to start. I leave it to more creative homebrewers than myself to figure out how to fill such a niche.

[stanprollyright]

The reason I mentioned Bards Diplomancing is because they are the best at it in core. They can do other things well, but not as well as they Diplomance.

This is entirely untrue. Bards don't have any special talent for diplomacy, they just happen to have it as a class skill and have charisma synergy. That's it. Any character can have good cha and take skill focus and be better at diplomacy than a bard. That's also not even the bard's primary schtick; their main area of expertise is buffing. That fact that they can excel at both, and about 30 other things at any given time, is what makes bard a better class than fighter.

[Cosi]

I would add several knowledge skills to identify monsters, more athletic skills like balance/tumble, maybe spot/listen as well. But demanding diplomacy to be part of it, does not cut into the chassis, whether you like it or not. If you intend to change chassis, that something different, and can be done with other classes or PRC that focuses on that part. For example, being a general is good PRC in my eyes.

Okay, you seem to be making a completely different point than I thought. Yes, you can give the Fighter non-combat abilities that aren't diplomacy. But you have to give them some non-combat abilities. That said, this doesn't seem to square with the rest of your position about how the Fighter should be a pure martial combat master.

No it does not, at all. Not every class should contribute to the every given situation, especially specialized characters. If you do not trade something for specialization, than what is the point of playing a jack of all trades character?

"Contribute in every situation" doesn't mean "has no weaknesses". The Wizard can contribute in and out of combat in a variety of ways, but he has weaknesses (e.g. no healing). Consider the alternative. If you have Combat Characters and Non-Combat Characters, half the party is sitting out every encounter. That's bad design.

If you are not playing that concepts, pick something else?

But some people have the character concept "Fighter, but does stuff out of combat". There's no reason for the class to support that to be anything other than Fighter.

If a character has multiple of that concepts, it means it is a multi-class.

I am profoundly skeptical of claims that you can do anything like that with 3e multi-classing. Since multi-classing forces you to start over, you end up with a variety of non-level appropriate concepts, which is not level appropriate. People who want sword powers and spell powers in 3e don't play a Wizard 5/Fighter 5, they play some kind of PrCed Gish or Duskblade.

[Keltest]

Okay, you seem to be making a completely different point than I thought. Yes, you can give the Fighter non-combat abilities that aren't diplomacy. But you have to give them some non-combat abilities. That said, this doesn't seem to square with the rest of your position about how the Fighter should be a pure martial combat master.

He's saying that the baseline fighter class, before you add in player customization like feat selection and skill point distribution, should be all about fighting, and nothing else. The other non-fighting stuff can come from skills, or feats, or items, or magic tap-dancing jackrabbits that live in your backpack if you can obtain some, but the actual class features need to all contribute to making the fighter better at fighting as their primary function.

[Morphic tide]

This is entirely untrue. Bards don't have any special talent for diplomacy, they just happen to have it as a class skill and have charisma synergy. That's it. Any character can have good cha and take skill focus and be better at diplomacy than a bard. That's also not even the bard's primary schtick; their main area of expertise is buffing. That fact that they can excel at both, and about 30 other things at any given time, is what makes bard a better class than fighter.

Actually, every non-spell Diplomacy buff is also available to Bards, and a couple of the spells too, and they have features for the role of Diplomancy, the power of warping sense and storylines with Diplomacy or effects with similar use to Diplomacy. A Bard optimized for Diplomancy is better at it by quite a bit than a Wizard optimized for Diplomancy.

Also, class skill and attribute synergy is more than enough to be a monster at something. Because you aren't crippling your character by buffing the attribute at the cost of others and you aren't losing skill points to cross class skills. That's why Bards are best at Diplomacy in core. They have some spells to boost it, they have nothing to lose by boosting Charisma as their only attribute of choice and they have three of the four major social skills. Even their class features include Diplomancy benefiting stuff.

And while Bards are designed as buffers, they can have basically the same power with buffs off of just the stuff put into Diplomancy. Charisma affects their other things just as much as it does Diplomancy, so they can be amazing buffers at the same time as being able to perform (Ex) Charm as an at-will.

Although the point you are making about Bards being a better class because they have multiple things to do with all builds is a good point.

To get this back on topic, maybe a Fighter overhaul should be focused on being the smart, precise combatant, focusing on Dexterity and Intelligence, while the Barbarian takes the role of hardline "big dumb fighter," only they can scare the **** out of people out of combat to make people not call their horrible bluffs and to get other people to cut the **** with their bluffs. Which is to say lots of Intimidate stuff and possibly a way to get Intimidate to Bluff and/or Sense Motive. Or just have Strength count for those three things. Still no Diplomacy on Barb, but having Barb specifically be the huge intimidating warrior fills in a niche and gives Barb something to do out-of-combat, no matter how limited.

Although giving every class an extra 2 skill points per level to fill in Spot and Listen ranks with, while making those class skills for all, would solve a surprising amount of problems. After all, they can choose to use those 2 extra points in non-sense things, or they can actually do guard duty correctly.

Since multi-classing forces you to start over,

No, it does not. That's 2e or 1st edition, not 3.x/PF. You start at the bottom of the new thing, but you keep all your previous stuff.

[Morphic tide]

He's saying that the baseline fighter class, before you add in player customization like feat selection and skill point distribution, should be all about fighting, and nothing else. The other non-fighting stuff can come from skills, or feats, or items, or magic tap-dancing jackrabbits that live in your backpack if you can obtain some, but the actual class features need to all contribute to making the fighter better at fighting as their primary function.

Not even primary function, secondary function is fine with me. As long as they all have combat as a direct function, rather than an indirect roundabout one.

For example, Bluff or Diplomacy to Intimidate is fine, for a very simple example. Anything that uses a non-combat function as a way to improve combat functions is fine with me, especially because they encourage getting things not normally combat related. Anything that can help a group fight, I'm fine with, as long as it still works in solo combat. Crafting? I'd prefer not to have that in the base class, but it directly helps in combat with just one step of removal. Craft weapon/armor > fight with weapon/armor.

[Milo v3]

Yes, but having the army stuff in the base class leaves dead class features for some builds. Which is very bad. And a lot of stuff that can be used to lead armies fits as feats. Which Fighter has a handy framework for Fighter exclusive feats. If you really want army leading in Fighters, write up feats. The core 3.5 Fighter is made with the assumption that the feats can fill in for class features, so make that happen. Make feats that have the role of class features that aren't about direct personal combat. Seriously, there are two Soulknife-as-feats posts on these forums that I've seen. An entire class, reduced to a set of not really broken feats. Badly made, probably. Still an entire class turned into a set of feats.

You realise mass combat as still combat right? All you need to make the fighter good at leading armies is something like "You may act as if you had ranks in Profession (Soldier) equal to your class level." and maybe some Knowledge (Geography) ranks.

When I say Fighters should Fight, I'm talking similar to how Bards should Diplomance. In both cases you should be able to build into other options, but you won't be as overwhelmingly supreme as if you focused on the class features supporting those options.

Except your asking for "Fighter can only fight unless you take optional stuff", while Bards have "I know things", "I buff people", "I can heal people", and "I can be sneaky" as things in it's class. Bard isn't as focused on Diplomacy as your asking Fighter to be with fighting.

[Keltest]

Except your asking for "Fighter can only fight unless you take optional stuff", while Bards have "I know things", "I buff people", "I can heal people", and "I can be sneaky" as things in it's class. Bard isn't as focused on Diplomacy as your asking Fighter to be with fighting.

Bards are perfectly capable of selecting spells that don't heal, or buff, and skills that aren't sneaky. I'm not sure why a bard's spell selection and skills don't count as optional while a fighter's feats and skills do.

[Milo v3]

Bards are perfectly capable of selecting spells that don't heal, or buff, and skills that aren't sneaky. I'm not sure why a bard's spell selection and skills don't count as optional while a fighter's feats and skills do.

I'd love to see a core bard that cannot buff considering bardic music. But spells and class skills are actually part of the class. Skills do count, but right now Fighters suck at them, so you need to make fighters better at skills to be good enough to count, and it seems like they are opposed to making fighters good at any skill that doesn't help you stab someone.

[Keltest]

I'd love to see a core bard that cannot buff considering bardic music.

Doesn't really answer my question. Yes, their bardic music is *a* buff, but to get access to it they need to spend skill points. So I ask again, why is it bard class features obtained through skills and selections don't count as optional, but fighter abilities gained by feats do?

[Morphic tide]

You realise mass combat as still combat right? All you need to make the fighter good at leading armies is something like "You may act as if you had ranks in Profession (Soldier) equal to your class level." and maybe some Knowledge (Geography) ranks.

Or you can have buffs that can apply to yourself when alone, as well as allies when they are around. Or stuff to debuff large groups of enemies, like being able to reliably Intimidate them into Panicking.

Except your asking for "Fighter can only fight unless you take optional stuff", while Bards have "I know things", "I buff people", "I can heal people", and "I can be sneaky" as things in it's class. Bard isn't as focused on Diplomacy as your asking Fighter to be with fighting.

I'm asking for all the features to tie into Fighting, all making the Fighter better at Fighting personally in some way. Army supporting stuff is fine as long as it also applies in solo fights. Which is not that hard at all for buffs. Stuff that boosts fighting which is keyed to non-combat stuff, like Diplomacy, more Bluff synergy for better Feigns, Intelligence synergy to have more non-combat things and so on. The quickest way to destroy the "big dumb fighter" is Intelligence to to-hit, which then makes quite a few things open up. Then, the better-scaling half of the non-feat reason you get Strength is gone. Later in the class, perhaps at level 3 or 4, you can have Intelligence replace more of Strength's use, perhaps having Intelligence count as a partial or caped Strength for feat purposes.

Edit: Non-combat relevant skills are okay, as long as the skill points are numbered based on how many combat and athletics relevant skills you have. Off the very top of my head, that's at least 6 skill points per level for Spot, Listen, Climb, Swim and Bluff and Sense Motive(for Feign).

[Nifft]

Doesn't really answer my question. Yes, their bardic music is *a* buff, but to get access to it they need to spend skill points. So I ask again, why is it bard class features obtained through skills and selections don't count as optional, but fighter abilities gained by feats do?

I suspect the disconnect here is that Fighters have SO FEW OPTIONS that doing any one thing is the most they can hope to accomplish, while a Bard can do several things easily -- they those things are technically options, but they're not mutually exclusive, so it's not like a Fighter who gets at most one option.

... at least that's what I think the other person is saying.

[OldTrees1]

Doesn't really answer my question. Yes, their bardic music is *a* buff, but to get access to it they need to spend skill points. So I ask again, why is it bard class features obtained through skills and selections don't count as optional, but fighter abilities gained by feats do?

So you would be okay for the Fighter base class to have some non fighting class features provided they were dormant until skill points were spent?

Wow, and here people were merely asking you to state your agreement with increasing the Fighter's allotment of skill points and expanding their skill list.

[Morphic tide]

I suspect the disconnect here is that Fighters have SO FEW OPTIONS that doing any one thing is the most they can hope to accomplish, while a Bard can do several things easily -- they those things are technically options, but they're not mutually exclusive, so it's not like a Fighter who gets at most one option.

... at least that's what I think the other person is saying.

You talking about me? The reason I want everything in the "Fighters always have it" part of the class to be directly applicable to personal combat is so that a Fighter 20 completely devoted to personal combat has nothing in their build that is useless for that. Having the creature identifying Knowledge skills(Which is Local for humanoids) as well as Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Bluff are fine with me. One ties into a way of fighting and the other with a type of character who has a lot of fighting skill. And Sense Motive and Bluff actually have direct combat relevance with Feigns.

The reason why I see crafting as at the edge of what I'm willing to accept is that in storytelling of basically all sorts, the person who makes the weapons is almost never the one using them. How many old stories, myths and legends and such, have the hero make their weapon of choice? How many of those have the hero not use magic directly to face their foes? However, it's an increasingly common thing in modern RPGs, though rarely as part of the story, and is only one step removed from combat.