Stuff fighters should get

[Cosi]

Okay, that's fair. A game where everyone has campaign-changing power, but no-one has game-breaking power. And, ideally, everyone has their own sorts of campaign-changers, without too much overlap.

Pretty much. Obviously, there are other changes I would make. For example, currently it's quite possible for characters to scale up to a fairly high power level, it just requires an extraordinary level of complexity. That's bad. The game should totally give you a world-conquering demon army at some point. It should just give you that army because you have reached the level where that is appropriate, not because the authors forgot to check if the sets "things you can summon with planar binding" and "things that can cast planar binding" overlapped.

5e combat is decently balanced; it's mostly utility stuff where casters tend to show up noncasters. Largely because they forgot to finish writing a skill system.

5e combat works okay until you realize that bounded accuracy means nothing in the world can stand up to a large enough force of chaff, so the correct answer to every problem is "throw animate dead at it until it goes away".

I don't think there's anything in 5e that another game doesn't do better, usually another version of D&D.

I'd much rather that the "campaign changers" had clauses built in that lets the GM keep them from changing the campaign for dramatic reasons sometimes - which is more or less what they did. I don't think everyone needs campaign changers regardless of class.

Having an ability that functions to only the degree that the DM wants it to is exactly like not having that ability. If I wanted to interact with someone else's story in ways they had okayed ahead of time, I would play Skyrim or read a book. The point of table top games is to take the plot into your own hands. People should spend less time thinking of creative ways to screw over the use of meaningful abilities and more time writing plots where those abilities are just one part of the solution to the puzzle.

teleport got you down? Don't declare that the BBEG's base is arbitrarily teleport-proof to force people to fight your set-piece encounters. Instead, give people real reasons to fight those encounters. Maybe the PCs have to capture the canopic jars that hold the organs of the Black Pharoh before they can storm his pyramid. Maybe they have a personal grudge against the Lich King's vampire minions. Maybe the goal is to explore an area. This is not hard, and the fact that you apparently think "lol no screw u" is a better solution reflects quite poorly on your intellect.

speak with dead ruining your murder mystery? Maybe the victim was assassinated from behind, or while sleeping. Maybe the assassin was just a cut-out for the real enemy. Maybe the assassin was a shape-shifter or invisible. Seriously, I don't think this solves all of the plots on TV shows like Person of Interest.

If you have to resort to the kinds of blunt road-blocks Psyren wants abilities to have, you should probably not be DMing.

[Arbane]

Note that the only thing fighters can do that even comes CLOSE to that sort of plot-breaking is Ubercharging the boss, and there's plenty of ways to avoid that.

[Rendenward]

The first step that I would take would probably to offer more options. I'd likely allow all of the Dragon Mag fighter variant special abilities as options to take in place of feats. Maybe a bonus special ability every few levels. A fighter is usually boring, but, say, an exoticist, targeteer, survivalist fighter might be a little more interesting.

[Mendicant]

teleport got you down? Don't declare that the BBEG's base is arbitrarily teleport-proof to force people to fight your set-piece encounters. Instead, give people real reasons to fight those encounters. Maybe the PCs have to capture the canopic jars that hold the organs of the Black Pharoh before they can storm his pyramid. Maybe they have a personal grudge against the Lich King's vampire minions. Maybe the goal is to explore an area. This is not hard, and the fact that you apparently think "lol no screw u" is a better solution reflects quite poorly on your intellect.

speak with dead ruining your murder mystery? Maybe the victim was assassinated from behind, or while sleeping. Maybe the assassin was just a cut-out for the real enemy. Maybe the assassin was a shape-shifter or invisible. Seriously, I don't think this solves all of the plots on TV shows like Person of Interest.

The distiniction between "bbeg base is warded against teleportation" and "speak with dead is a dead end because the attacker stabbed the victim in the back" seems pretty arbitrary to me here.

I also think you're underselling how much "plot breaking" spells constrain campaign design. Baking toggles into some of the real game-changers would make the system more flexible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you have to resort to the kinds of blunt road-blocks Psyren wants abilities to have, you should probably not be DMing.

At the very least, our hypothetical D&D 3.75 should have more extensive advice about how to deal with game-changing spells. A few paragraphs on how things like Teleport change campaigns, on how to keep things mysterious when divinations exist, how to keep up the pressure and danger when the party can just hide in a Rope Trick.

I do disagree that such features are important to prevent railroading and provide agency. Agency is largely a system-neutral thing; you can have everyone's-a-kobold level games with total agency, and you can have superheroes-and-gods level games where the GM is still a tyrannical railroader. When big setting-changing spells and abilities are good for is providing a sense of progression. They make the game play very differently when the come online, making once-difficult challenges trivial and opening up new avenues for adventure. That's a critical part of a level-based system.

[ShurikVch]

Stuff fighters should get

Staff of Power:

The staff is also a +2 quarterstaff, and its wielder may use it to smite opponents. If 1 charge is expended (as a free action), the staff causes double damage (×3 on a critical hit) for 1 round.

Oh, it says "Stuff"...

[Cosi]

The first step that I would take would probably to offer more options. I'd likely allow all of the Dragon Mag fighter variant special abilities as options to take in place of feats. Maybe a bonus special ability every few levels. A fighter is usually boring, but, say, an exoticist, targeteer, survivalist fighter might be a little more interesting.

Giving the Fighter more things to do with his feats seems like a bad solution. Part of the problem is that while there are okay-ish things to do, they are buried so deep that most people can't hope to find them.

The distiniction between "bbeg base is warded against teleportation" and "speak with dead is a dead end because the attacker stabbed the victim in the back" seems pretty arbitrary to me here.

Disagree. The speak with dead ability still allows you to use your ability. The better analogy is "the BBEG blanketed a room in illusions so you teleported in somewhere different from where you thought you were going".

I also think you're underselling how much "plot breaking" spells constrain campaign design. Baking toggles into some of the real game-changers would make the system more flexible.

That's the point. High level abilities exist to make high level play different from low level play. You want to tell stories with no teleport? Fine. You have levels 1 to 8 to do it. In the same way that we should not demand loopholes in fly so that we can throw bears against 15th level characters, we should not demand loopholes in teleport so we can throw desert treks at 15th level characters.

At the very least, our hypothetical D&D 3.75 should have more extensive advice about how to deal with game-changing spells. A few paragraphs on how things like Teleport change campaigns, on how to keep things mysterious when divinations exist, how to keep up the pressure and danger when the party can just hide in a Rope Trick.

Yes. In general, much more effort should have been made to make the expectations for the kinds of abilities people will get at various levels explicit. Then you wouldn't have had 15th level see the Monk get 1/Week Save Or Die, the Wizard get greater planar binding and polymorph any object, and the Fighter get an extra point of BAB.

I do disagree that such features are important to prevent railroading and provide agency. Agency is largely a system-neutral thing; you can have everyone's-a-kobold level games with total agency, and you can have superheroes-and-gods level games where the GM is still a tyrannical railroader.

I agree that those abilities aren't a panacea, but I think they are important. Obviously the roles possess no power to force your DM to do any particular thing. But having the default be "yes" rather than "no" is an important step. The point of the rules is to adjudicate disputes, and the point of these abilities is to adjudicate plot disputes in the player's favor. Giving the DM pushback is missing the point.

When big setting-changing spells and abilities are good for is providing a sense of progression. They make the game play very differently when the come online, making once-difficult challenges trivial and opening up new avenues for adventure. That's a critical part of a level-based system.

Entirely agree.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

To the people saying that game-changing magic should be a bit more explicitly labeled as such for DMs, I'll point you to Spheres of Power. Along with nerfing magic (though mundanes could still use some help in the narrative/utility department even with SoP) it divides the magical effects it allows into Basic and Advanced, with a note telling the DM to only allow Advanced magic at all if it fits the world and story, and to be careful of just handing it out to every Wizard.

[Psyren]

At the very least, our hypothetical D&D 3.75 should have more extensive advice about how to deal with game-changing spells. A few paragraphs on how things like Teleport change campaigns, on how to keep things mysterious when divinations exist, how to keep up the pressure and danger when the party can just hide in a Rope Trick.

I do disagree that such features are important to prevent railroading and provide agency. Agency is largely a system-neutral thing; you can have everyone's-a-kobold level games with total agency, and you can have superheroes-and-gods level games where the GM is still a tyrannical railroader. When big setting-changing spells and abilities are good for is providing a sense of progression. They make the game play very differently when the come online, making once-difficult challenges trivial and opening up new avenues for adventure. That's a critical part of a level-based system.

Eh, Cosi hurls his toys out of the pram at terminal velocity every time the limits the designers intentionally built into those spells are even brought up. I'm both used to it, and extremely happy that I'll never have to DM for or play with him.

Pathfinder did include paragraphs exactly like the ones you describe, in books like Ultimate Intrigue, Ultimate Campaign, and Gamemastery Guide. But I don't think you need the entire game world to be fixed to a single power level ("everyone is a kobold" or "everyone is a superhero") for these spells to function. Having specific locations in the world where teleporting is unwise while allowing it to function nearly everywhere else is not bad design, particularly when the spell itself warns you of that fact well in advance of you selecting it. I see it as no different than, say, a bad guy lining the walls of his ritual chamber with lead so rivals and heroes can't see what he's doing in there.

[Mars Ultor]

Monster Lore: Fighters should be able to know a monster's abilities to one degree or another. It's Bardic Knowledge of creatures.

More Skill points: Right now you can't make a Knight or a Spartan soldier, two of the historical warrior archetypes.

Feats that scale: Cleave and Great Cleave are almost the same thing, one should replace the other. If you take a feat you should get the next feat in the chain free as you qualify by level or BAB.

The entire Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization Feat Chain as a class feature. Half of those bonuses apply if using a related weapon.

Leadership as a class feature.

Strength bonus as a substitute for Charisma in Charisma-based skills when appropriate.

If your BAB is higher than your opponent's you don't provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

Size: At 5th level or so a Fighter should be able to act as if he is a creature of one size larger. This applies to Tripping, Grappling, Bull Rush, reach, etc. At a higher level this applies to his weapons as well; they do damage as if they were one size larger. A Fighter doesn't actually grow in size so he suffers no AC or Dex penalties.

Great Strength: A Fighter can add BAB/2 to his Strength score a number of rounds a day equal to his Constitution bonus.

Decreasing Armor Check Penalties: You can subtract one point of ACP for each point of BAB. A 4th-level Fighter in a Breastplate has no Armor Check Penalty.

Fighters get an additional +1 to AC every three levels when using a shield.

Parry: As a Full Round Action a Fighter can attempt to parry any weapon attack and some spell or other attacks. Use the rules for Disarm. If using a shield, a Fighter can add his shield bonus to his Parry attempt, or Saving Throw, whichever is applicable. (A Fighter would be able to use his shield to defend against a Dragon's breath weapon.)

[Cosi]

Eh, Cosi hurls his toys out of the pram at terminal velocity every time the limits the designers intentionally built into those spells are even brought up. I'm both used to it, and extremely happy that I'll never have to DM for or play with him.

It's nice to see Psyren continue in his proud tradition of never making good arguments for anything ever. These days, too many people waver from their beliefs and principles, so it's nice to see someone sticking with theirs.

In any case, let's break down exactly what's wrong with this post.

First, ad hominem. "hurls his toys out of the pram" and " I'm ... extremely happy that I'll never have to DM for or play with him" both have literally no bearing on the validity of any of the arguments presented. Presupposing the notion that I am in fact an infant, that would not make any of the points I've raised wrong.

Second, non sequitor. The discussion in question is, to a very large degree, about how these abilities should work, not how they do work. The question of "the limits the designers intentionally built into those spells" is irrelevant if we're discussing whether or not there should be DM escape clauses in e.g. teleport.

Third, appeal to authority. This is, admittedly, a less glaring issue, but it should be raised nonetheless. Psyren's sole justification for why limits should exist on these spells appears to be "designers did it that way". But that's not really a compelling argument, particularly when it's not even accompanied by his usual "people still play it, therefore it's perfect" line. The choices of the designers of one game are very rarely correct for all games. D&D's use of a d20 does not, in any sense, imply that Shadowrun is wrong to use dicepools.

Now, this is not a fallacy, but to achieve an accurate understanding of what's going on here, we should consider some broader context. Psyren himself has said that he would refuse to play a game where the paradigm he prefers at all levels for casters and mundanes was not totally preserved. He apparently does not notice the hypocrisy in demanding that the entire game system bow to his views, while simultaneously claiming that someone who prefers that abilities be limited in a different way than he does is a baby.

So we have on one side, an avalanche of personal insults in the defense of the position that the whole game should always and in all ways contort itself around one particular play paradigm, and on the other side the position that the game should support different paradigms at different levels even if not every group enjoys every paradigm. And apparently the position that says "you can exclude concepts you don't like from your games, but in exchange you will sometimes be told your concept isn't appropriate for a given game" is less mature than the position "the whole game is mine and only mine and anyone who wants to do things any way but mine is a baby".

But I don't think you need the entire game world to be fixed to a single power level ("everyone is a kobold" or "everyone is a superhero") for these spells to function.

Again, non sequitur. Can someone point to the place where I said that everyone should have teleport? Because I don't remember saying that. I remember being pretty explicit about the possibility of games where you don't have teleport. Or where you have a form of teleportation that is somehow limited (for example, LOS only or unable to travel through more than 40ft of stone).

Having specific locations in the world where teleporting is unwise while allowing it to function nearly everywhere else is not bad design, particularly when the spell itself warns you of that fact well in advance of you selecting it. I see it as no different than, say, a bad guy lining the walls of his ritual chamber with lead so rivals and heroes can't see what he's doing in there.

It is different because it is determined by the DM, and players therefore have no way of determining beforehand whether teleport will work. Having line-lined rooms is fine. Having forbiddance blocking teleportation is fine. What is not fine is having rooms retroactively declared to be lead-lined when you scry them, or having your DM announce that the base was always already a "high energy" destination when you finally cast teleport.

For what it's worth, I'm not even opposed to having abilities where the DM determines how effective your action is. That's fine, even if it's something I don't like especially much. What's not fine is taking an ability like that, and pretending it's an ability that really lets you influence the plot. If teleport is going to be presented as a meaningful ability, it needs to really be a meaningful ability. If you want teleport to not be a meaningful ability, that's fine, but there's no cause to lie about it.

More Skill points: Right now you can't make a Knight or a Spartan soldier, two of the historical warrior archetypes.

Nitpick: you'd also need to give them more class skills, as they lack e.g. Diplomacy and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) which are probably skills Knights have.
Serious: this is basically fluff text after sixth level or so. I don't really care how big your jump modifier is if I can cast fly, and I certainly don't care if I can cast overland flight.

Feats that scale: Cleave and Great Cleave are almost the same thing, one should replace the other. If you take a feat you should get the next feat in the chain free as you qualify by level or BAB.

This is fine, but it has some issues. For example, some feat trees have dramatically higher branching factors than others. Also, increases the complexity of a class that is already pretty complex to build.

The entire Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization Feat Chain as a class feature. Half of those bonuses apply if using a related weapon.

I don't like this. Those bonuses are tiny and fiddly -- tracking them is annoying. Also, this is likely to encourage people not to use cool weapons they find, which is bad.

Strength bonus as a substitute for Charisma in Charisma-based skills when appropriate.

Is there a reason this couldn't be "all skills" and "always"?

Great Strength: A Fighter can add BAB/2 to his Strength score a number of rounds a day equal to his Constitution bonus.

This seems fiddly for no reason other than being fiddly. Is +2 STR/4 levels really breaking anything if it is just on all the time?

Fighters get an additional +1 to AC every three levels when using a shield.

I don't think this is enough to overcome the equity you lose from using a shield instead of some better option.

Parry: As a Full Round Action a Fighter can attempt to parry any weapon attack and some spell or other attacks. Use the rules for Disarm. If using a shield, a Fighter can add his shield bonus to his Parry attempt, or Saving Throw, whichever is applicable. (A Fighter would be able to use his shield to defend against a Dragon's breath weapon.)

How is this different from a disarm?

There are some interesting ideas here, but I'm not seeing answers to serious issues like "what does a Fighter do when it is not combat" or "the Fighter is a nightmare to build". I suppose Leadership helps with the first, but I'm not super happy with "pet Wizard" as a solution to that issue.

[Triskavanski]

Pathfinder has recently done some good stuff for Fighters

If I was to do up fighter more, it would be some heavy restructuring of feats.

There would start of "Proficiency" feats

1/2 bab + less than simple would start with 1 prof slot
1/2 bab + simple would start with 2 prof slots
3/4 bab + less than simple would start with 3 prof slots
3/4 bab + simple would start with 4 prof slots
3/4 bab + martial would start with 5 prof slots
Full bab + simple would start with 6
Full bab + Martial would start with 7.

give or take a few slots on some of them.

Each time the BAB goes up by 1, a new prof slot is gained.


Prof slots would be used to buy
Simple weapons = 1/2 a slot
Martial weapons = 1 slot
Exotic weapons = 2 slots.


Any class could buy Weapon focus for 1 slot.
Fighter can buy weapon focus/specilizations for 1 slot

In addition basic Fighting styles can be purchased for a slot each

1 Weapon
2h weapons
Sword and Board
Dual Weapon
Bow/Crossbow
Thrown
etc.

Each of these feats function more like Equipment tricks, becoming bigger and more powerful as you meet new pre-reqs.

Advance Fighting styles then can be learned as well that rely on a basic style or two, again pretty expansive stuff here.




That'll clear up a lot of the fiddly bits with fighter, leaving his combat feats open to develop his own methods of fighting while having a lot of the basics. None of this Human fighter prof with Kobold butt spikes even though he was suppose to be a dude who was just really good with a whip because he trained and learned how to use a whip.


From there, Particuarly after level 10, the fighter should totally start getting feats/abillites/etc to deal with magic. Course the problem with them is people start going off on how weeaboo it is. Mostly cause we don't see a lot of western movies/shows/etc where the main character doesn't have magic to deal with magic.

[Mars Ultor]

Nitpick: you'd also need to give them more class skills, as they lack e.g. Diplomacy and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) which are probably skills Knights have.
Serious: this is basically fluff text after sixth level or so. I don't really care how big your jump modifier is if I can cast fly, and I certainly don't care if I can cast overland flight.

Getting suitable class skills was assumed. It's crazy that Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty isn't already a class skill for fighters. A spell caster is always going to be able to fly and a fighter isn't. I suppose there are ToB maneuvers that let you run across the treetops or jump like the Hulk, but a wizard is always going to outclass a fighter in many ways. These changes would make the fighter more useful for a few more levels, but you'll never be able to get your jump modifier high enough to compete with flight, and you shouldn't be able to. It's a whole new game if you want some skills compete with spells.

I don't like this. Those bonuses are tiny and fiddly -- tracking them is annoying. Also, this is likely to encourage people not to use cool weapons they find, which is bad.

The issue here is that just giving them a flat +2/+2 becomes meaningless after a while. Some graduated scale would be good but it's just adding complexity. I agree that it would discourage the use of different weapons, so whatever the modifier it should apply to all weapons. Perhaps +2/+2 in general and +3/+3 for a particular weapon.

Here's a suggestion, standard +2/+2 to start and then as they increase in level Fighters get to use the next higher die for weapon damage. A longsword is 1d10 in the hands of a Fighter, at a higher level it's 1d12.

Is there a reason this couldn't be "all skills" and "always"?

I can see Strength being applied to Intimidate and even Perform, but Disguise?

This seems fiddly for no reason other than being fiddly. Is +2 STR/4 levels really breaking anything if it is just on all the time?

I'd actually prefer one of the earlier edition rules where Fighters got higher Strength and Constitution bonuses than other classes, but that's adding more complexity. You could adjust the bonus per level, but then the other Fighter classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger) should get the same benefit. Upping your Strength is the Barbarian thing, you don't want to invalidate that class by giving better bonuses to the Fighter.

Actually, I'd give the Strength bonuses to all the Fighter classes, but restrict the increased weapon die damage to Fighters.

I don't think this is enough to overcome the equity you lose from using a shield instead of some better option.

My preference would be Damage Reduction, but who's going to keep track of that? Historically the shield is the most important (and affordable) defense a warrior ever had. For some reason D&D makes them virtually worthless.

They always get double their normal shield bonus as well as an additional +1 to AC per 2 levels?

How is this different from a disarm?

It's allowing you to block an attack and it's applicable to more than just a melee attack. You can parry a thrown rock from a giant, a crossbow bolt, a Scorching Ray, etc.

There are some interesting ideas here, but I'm not seeing answers to serious issues like "what does a Fighter do when it is not combat" or "the Fighter is a nightmare to build". I suppose Leadership helps with the first, but I'm not super happy with "pet Wizard" as a solution to that issue.

The great range of skills and skill points would make some difference, and Monster Lore would be useful if you knew what you were going to fight. If you give Fighters access to Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering, they might know if secret doors are common in certain style castles, or the weak points of fortresses. Diplomacy should be a class skill with Strength as the relevant ability.

Some of making yourself useful out of combat is finding ways to be useful.

There's no real way that a Fighter is ever going to compete with a Druid, and after a while the abilities you'd need to give Fighter to keep them competitive turn them into something that's not a fighter. Letting them act is if they're larger and giving them the increased weapon damage (through size and as a class skill) makes a difference for several levels.

I suppose you could require spell casters to roll to hit with their spells in addition to saving throws, but that's not making a Fighter more useful, it's just crippling magic-users. The game is inherently out of balance and there's only so much you can do to keep martial characters useful when Wizards can do pretty much anything. The game is essentially broken, you can make the Fighter a class on par or superior to Barbarians, but after a while a DM has to adjust the encounters so Fighters can continue to participate. Of just do it the old way, the game essentially stops at 10th Level and you become a feudal lord or open Hogwarts depending on your class.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Getting suitable class skills was assumed. It's crazy that Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty isn't already a class skill for fighters. A spell caster is always going to be able to fly and a fighter isn't. I suppose there are ToB maneuvers that let you run across the treetops or jump like the Hulk, but a wizard is always going to outclass a fighter in many ways. These changes would make the fighter more useful for a few more levels, but you'll never be able to get your jump modifier high enough to compete with flight, and you shouldn't be able to. It's a whole new game if you want some skills compete with spells.

A whole new game, but arguably a necessary one.

A less extreme approach, which I took with my most recent Fighter fix, is to make it easier for melee fighters to dabble in ranged combat. I accomplished it by granting multiple sets of bonus feats (so you could have one set dedicated to archery), making any weapon he wields count as a magic weapon with a minor attack and damage boost, and granting an Inspiration-style renewable resource that can be spent to make up for a lower ability score, but there are plenty of ways to get it done.

The issue here is that just giving them a flat +2/+2 becomes meaningless after a while. Some graduated scale would be good but it's just adding complexity. I agree that it would discourage the use of different weapons, so whatever the modifier it should apply to all weapons. Perhaps +2/+2 in general and +3/+3 for a particular weapon.

Make it work like the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude, where they can switch the chosen weapon with an hour of training? Weapon damage dice aren't very important in 3.5 past the first couple levels, though, so that's probably less worthwhile.

I can see Strength being applied to Intimidate and even Perform, but Disguise?

Some sort of skill boost isn't bad, but yeah, Str to everything is odd. I saw someone suggest double-Str/Dex/Con to checks, though, which I thought was kind of neat.

I'd actually prefer one of the earlier edition rules where Fighters got higher Strength and Constitution bonuses than other classes, but that's adding more complexity. You could adjust the bonus per level, but then the other Fighter classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger) should get the same benefit. Upping your Strength is the Barbarian thing, you don't want to invalidate that class by giving better bonuses to the Fighter.

If you're significantly tweaking the Fighter, you kind of need to do the others too. At least the Barbarian.

My preference would be Damage Reduction, but who's going to keep track of that? Historically the shield is the most important (and affordable) defense a warrior ever had. For some reason D&D makes them virtually worthless.

Miss chance. Shields should give a miss chance.

It's allowing you to block an attack and it's applicable to more than just a melee attack. You can parry a thrown rock from a giant, a crossbow bolt, a Scorching Ray, etc.

The problem is that it's a full-round action. No-one's going to take a full-round action to sit there and defend. It should be immediate, with increasing numbers of uses/round as you level up. Also, not sure what "use the rules for disarm" mean here-- I took it to mean "you make a disarm attempt against any attacker until your next turn," but that won't help against things like thrown rocks and spells, so, uh...

Some of making yourself useful out of combat is finding ways to be useful.

And some of it is having unique abilities that actually do things.

[Mars Ultor]

A whole new game, but arguably a necessary one.

I haven't played 5th Edition, but I hear it's pretty good.

If you're significantly tweaking the Fighter, you kind of need to do the others too. At least the Barbarian.

Part of the issue with the Fighter is that many of the class features you'd give him could also apply to the other martial classes. Why should a Fighter be able to "fight big," but not a Barbarian? Why should a Fighter get an expanded skill list, but not the Ranger? BTW, why on earth do Rangers not get Knowledge: Local?

Weapons and general leadership should be the niche of a Fighter, the other stuff applies to the other classes. A Paladin should get any kind of shied bonus a Fighter gets, but rallying men and waging war should be a Fighter's purview.

Miss chance. Shields should give a miss chance.

What percentage? 20% for a heavy shield? 30%? How helpful is a buckler?

The problem is that [parrying] it's a full-round action. No-one's going to take a full-round action to sit there and defend. It should be immediate, with increasing numbers of uses/round as you level up. Also, not sure what "use the rules for disarm" mean here-- I took it to mean "you make a disarm attempt against any attacker until your next turn," but that won't help against things like thrown rocks and spells, so, uh...

An extra action the only Fighters get? Paladin can do it as a Move action?

The rules for Disarm in the sense that you're trying to hit the thing that's hitting you. You have to make an attack roll against the attack. A Hill Giant throws a rock at you, he gets a 22 and would normally hit you. You get an attack against the Hill Giant's attack; if your attack roll is 23 or higher you've deflected it.

[Jormengand]

A shield shouldn't provide +AC or miss chance. A shield-user doesn't need protection from fighter because fighter isn't a real threat. A shield should provide protection from wizard, and to the tower shield's credit, it actually can. The next step is to make that good enough to be worth doing.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Or maybe this hypothetical 3.75 should nerf the Wizard (so magic in general) so the Fighter doesn't *have to* have anti-Wizard measures just to be a worthwhile class, and *then* talk about buffing the Fighter?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I haven't played 5th Edition, but I hear it's pretty good.

Doesn't do a lot for noncombat utility, mind. See earlier posts about "forgot to include a skill system."

Part of the issue with the Fighter is that many of the class features you'd give him could also apply to the other martial classes. Why should a Fighter be able to "fight big," but not a Barbarian? Why should a Fighter get an expanded skill list, but not the Ranger? BTW, why on earth do Rangers not get Knowledge: Local?

Well, yeah. The Fighter and Barbarian should proooobably be combined, because both are very much "be strong and hit things" classes. The Ranger and the Paladin have more unique conceptual space to hang useful abilities. (Incidentally: because Rangers already have a good skill list, and because they're about the wilderness, not cities)

What percentage? 20% for a heavy shield? 30%? How helpful is a buckler?

In my G&G houserules, I went with 10% for a heavy or light shield, +5%/iterative attack. -5% for a buckler, +10% for a tower shield.

An extra action the only Fighters get? Paladin can do it as a Move action?

The rules for Disarm in the sense that you're trying to hit the thing that's hitting you. You have to make an attack roll against the attack. A Hill Giant throws a rock at you, he gets a 22 and would normally hit you. You get an attack against the Hill Giant's attack; if your attack roll is 23 or higher you've deflected it.

That doesn't have tremendous amount to do with the Disarm rules; "substitute a melee attack for your AC" is easier and clearer.

A shield shouldn't provide +AC or miss chance. A shield-user doesn't need protection from fighter because fighter isn't a real threat. A shield should provide protection from wizard, and to the tower shield's credit, it actually can. The next step is to make that good enough to be worth doing.

To be fair, a miss chance helps against rays and touches considerably. I suppose you could also rule that the miss chance from shields applies even to targeted spells like Slow; there's a whatever% chance that you interpose your shield in just the right way to block line-of-effect.

[Wiwaxia]

I've always been a fan of the LotFP approach wherein fighters, and only fighters, get a to-hit bonus that increases as they level up.
Take away everyone else's iterative attacks and manyshot, while you're at it.
Won't make fighters balanced, but will make them distinctive!

[mabriss lethe]

Something I've toyed with as a potential idea, is to roll in NPC classes as gestalt-like "Backgrounds" for every character. I still haven't figured out quite how I'd implement it. It would work easily with a Fighter, gestalt with expert or aristocrat for different skills, or with adept for some magic. It gets significantly clunkier when applied to other classes. It's a starting place, though, one that probably needs to be reworked from the ground up.

[Cosi]

A spell caster is always going to be able to fly and a fighter isn't. I suppose there are ToB maneuvers that let you run across the treetops or jump like the Hulk, but a wizard is always going to outclass a fighter in many ways. These changes would make the fighter more useful for a few more levels, but you'll never be able to get your jump modifier high enough to compete with flight, and you shouldn't be able to. It's a whole new game if you want some skills compete with spells.

There's no real way that a Fighter is ever going to compete with a Druid, and after a while the abilities you'd need to give Fighter to keep them competitive turn them into something that's not a fighter. Letting them act is if they're larger and giving them the increased weapon damage (through size and as a class skill) makes a difference for several levels.

This seems pretty fatalist. What do you see the concept of "Fighter" meaning that would preclude it from leveling up to match a Wizard of whatever level you think it can't match?

Here's a suggestion, standard +2/+2 to start and then as they increase in level Fighters get to use the next higher die for weapon damage. A longsword is 1d10 in the hands of a Fighter, at a higher level it's 1d12.

This is almost always roughly +1 damage, except you have to look up (or memorize) the weapon die size scaling table. Why not just +1 damage?

I can see Strength being applied to Intimidate and even Perform, but Disguise?

Why not? You can already add your DEX bonus to Fort saves, your INT bonus to disarm, or your CHA bonus to concentration. If you imagine it as focusing on the physical rather than social aspects of impersonation, that seems fine.

My preference would be Damage Reduction, but who's going to keep track of that? Historically the shield is the most important (and affordable) defense a warrior ever had. For some reason D&D makes them virtually worthless.

People will keep track of damage reduction if it's big enough to matter. The Barbarian's DR 1/- is pointless, but DR 25/- would allow you to shrug off full attacks from huge dragons pretty trivially. Obviously you don't have to go that high, but DR isn't automatically meaningless.

Or maybe this hypothetical 3.75 should nerf the Wizard (so magic in general) so the Fighter doesn't *have to* have anti-Wizard measures just to be a worthwhile class, and *then* talk about buffing the Fighter?

What steps do you think need to be taken? "Nerf the Wizard" could mean anything from "fix planar binding" to "make it worse than the Bard". The point of this thread is to be explicit about ideas, so be explicit about what form you think nerfing the Wizard should take.

I've always been a fan of the LotFP approach wherein fighters, and only fighters, get a to-hit bonus that increases as they level up.
Take away everyone else's iterative attacks and manyshot, while you're at it.
Won't make fighters balanced, but will make them distinctive!

A game with the variety of classes 3e has can't afford to have "makes attacks" be the purview of a single class. Any fix for the Fighter needs to leave room for the Druids, Duskblades, Paladins, and Rogues of the world to serve as combatants to at least some degree.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I don't necessarily think the Wizard specifically should be nerfed (it's as pointless/bland as the Fighter and both should be removed or merged with other classes imo), so much as fixing magic in general.

Ideally this would start with removing Vancian magic from the game entirely, replaced with something similar to Spheres of Power, or Psionics if you want to keep "Spell lists" as a thing.

But it mostly depends on what kind of game you want D&D to be overall. I prefer my games to only have moderate magical power levels, but have fairly common, interesting magic

[Uckleverry]

What exactly of 3.5 would you folks want to retain?

You're talking about all these big changes, and at the same time saying that both 4e and 5e are too different from the ideal you're looking for. Those two editions have solved many of the issues brought up in the thread -- in various ways, to various degrees -- but the rest of their rules systems seem to run counter to what you want from these fixes.

[Vaz]

What exactly of 3.5 would you folks want to retain?

You're talking about all these big changes, and at the same time saying that both 4e and 5e are too different from the ideal you're looking for. Those two editions have solved many of the issues brought up in the thread -- in various ways, to various degrees -- but the rest of their rules systems seem to run counter to what you want from these fixes.

So... your complaint is?

[Uckleverry]

You misunderstood. I'm asking what the essential features of 3.5 are in the minds of people who want to see the system changed. What will keep the edition still more or less the same edition, yet with pretty drastic changes added to the mechanics?

There are editions, namely 4e and 5e, which did implement large changes, but those changes have also ended up making the systems too different for the people who want 3.5. But what exactly is "D&D 3.5" and how much can it be changed before it essentially turns into another edition -- and how do you prevent it changing into something resembling 4e/5e if you do adjust the rules in the manner suggested here?

[Cosi]

Ideally this would start with removing Vancian magic from the game entirely, replaced with something similar to Spheres of Power, or Psionics if you want to keep "Spell lists" as a thing.

How does going from Spell Slots to Spell Points make any of the parts of magic that are broken less broken? If all you did was convert every spell's cost to spell points (with the 2 * level - 1 formula), then you would end up with the exact same spells being broken in the exact same ways. Probably worse actually, because if you can cash in your burning hands slots for more planar binding that is totally something you would do. I assume you also want to apply some of the nerfs involved in Spheres of Power -- which, to be clear, is fine, but be explicit about what changes you like -- but couldn't you apply the nerfs to spell effects without changing spellcasting's resource management? What are you getting by changing from "people have Spell Slots" to "people do whatever Spheres of Power does"?

What exactly of 3.5 would you folks want to retain?

It depends on what you mean. If you're doing 3.75 I think the target is to keep on being able to use the Monster Manuals. The advantage of 3e over "some other system" is that it has a big pile of monsters you can use. If you change that, I think you're better off writing a new system. If you're doing D&D 6e, that's more complicated. I think one of the big ones is spells like fabricate and teleport which give people big and useful non-combat options. There's also a bunch of subtler mechanical stuff -- for example, a unified task resolution system.

You're talking about all these big changes, and at the same time saying that both 4e and 5e are too different from the ideal you're looking for. Those two editions have solved many of the issues brought up in the thread -- in various ways, to various degrees -- but the rest of their rules systems seem to run counter to what you want from these fixes.

4e and 5e are bad games. 4e has badly implemented versions of a variety of good ideas, and 5e is unfinished and crippled by Bounded Accuracy.

[Uckleverry]

It depends on what you mean. If you're doing 3.75 I think the target is to keep on being able to use the Monster Manuals. The advantage of 3e over "some other system" is that it has a big pile of monsters you can use. If you change that, I think you're better off writing a new system. If you're doing D&D 6e, that's more complicated. I think one of the big ones is spells like fabricate and teleport which give people big and useful non-combat options. There's also a bunch of subtler mechanical stuff -- for example, a unified task resolution system.

But there's gotta be more than that though. What about 3e style multi-classing? Do you keep feats? Skills as a separate sub-system from combat resolution? Hit points and how you gain them? Ability scores? Can monsters keep all of that, but PCs use something different? Do monsters have to play by the same rules as PCs, like 3.5 more or less does? If monsters are kept as is, how do you resolve their spells and spell-like abilities?

4e and 5e are bad games. 4e has badly implemented versions of a variety of good ideas, and 5e is unfinished and crippled by Bounded Accuracy.

But if those two are badly designed games, where does that leave 3.5? Better designed? Really? Why do you want to change it so drastically then?

[Eldariel]

But if those two are badly designed games, where does that leave 3.5? Better designed? Really? Why do you want to change it so drastically then?

All of them have errors, just different ones. The route to creating a solid design is to start working on the problems in any given system and weed them out until you reach the point where the whole is solid. None of the D&D editions have done that but 3.X is at least full of material, good ideas, and has a decent baseline. It's a good starting point for working out the issues. 4e is way too restricted and structured for meaningful improvement without a complete redesign and 5e requires a complete rebuild if you don't like bounded accuracy.

3e is the truly open system where one level is supposedly worth the other, you can multiclass as you like, there are tons of different subsystems, etc. Just, then there are classes like the PHB warrior classes that really don't get anything, and many of the classes aren't worth taking all the way (PF is a superior baseline in this regard). Then there are silly goofs like the concept of a single attack, warriors lacking all the exclusive stuff, many spells being too easy/having too few downsides/being too low level, etc. Those are just individual issues though, and fixing them is far less of a hassle than fixing everything in the other editions. And AD&D just has a way more restrictive framework, meaning perfect AD&D has less to offer than perfect 3E. WotC made many goofs in each of their attempts.

[Uckleverry]

3e is the truly open system where one level is supposedly worth the other, you can multiclass as you like, there are tons of different subsystems, etc. Just, then there are classes like the PHB warrior classes that really don't get anything, and many of the classes aren't worth taking all the way (PF is a superior baseline in this regard). Then there are silly goofs like the concept of a single attack, warriors lacking all the exclusive stuff, many spells being too easy/having too few downsides/being too low level, etc. Those are just individual issues though, and fixing them is far less of a hassle than fixing everything in the other editions.

Ok, so free, essentially unrestricted multi-classing is one of the core principles of what makes 3.5 the game it is. Every level should be equal (I assume, lvl 7 of class X should be as valuable as lvl 7 of class Y). Different subsystems that also feel and play differently.

How do keep all of those, yet remove the class discrepancies? Give warrior-type classes new abilities? Do you use the spell system as a basis (much like Tome of Battle did), or something else? The skill subsystem? The feat subsystem?

If you use the spell subsystem as the basis, how do you prevent it from feeling like spells (like the critics of ToB and 4e claim it to feel)?

If you use the skill subsystem, how do you expand it so that it covers the wide-reaching abilities of magic? That's a massive task, with repercussions throughout the entire 3.5 rules system. Same applies for using the feat subsystem.

4e fixes the discrepancies through what you'd call the spell subsystem, through the skill subsystem, but also through altering what the rules themselves represent (world physics vs. story/genre assumptions). 5e fixes it to a lesser degree than 4e, primarily by restricting the spell subsystem (what 4e also does) and by expanding it to cover more classes (and does very little with the skill subsystem).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ideally this would start with removing Vancian magic from the game entirely, replaced with something similar to Spheres of Power, or Psionics if you want to keep "Spell lists" as a thing.

Vancian magic is a major part of the D&D "feel," I think. There's nothing that makes it inherently more imbalanced than something like psionics (you could even argue the opposite, that slot-based magic is easier to DM for because it forces you to still use low-level powers and makes going nova harder and less effective). The reason psionics are more balanced than vancean magic in 3.5 are all external-- conventional magic has more material to interact in unexpected ways, disciplines do a better job of restricting access to powerful spells than schools, the writers knew more about what to avoid by the time psionics rolled around, psionics were written with a more limited outlook on what they should be able to do, etc.

You misunderstood. I'm asking what the essential features of 3.5 are in the minds of people who want to see the system changed. What will keep the edition still more or less the same edition, yet with pretty drastic changes added to the mechanics?

There are editions, namely 4e and 5e, which did implement large changes, but those changes have also ended up making the systems too different for the people who want 3.5. But what exactly is "D&D 3.5" and how much can it be changed before it essentially turns into another edition -- and how do you prevent it changing into something resembling 4e/5e if you do adjust the rules in the manner suggested here?

I think the keys to 3.5 D&D are:

• Vancean Casting: I'm sorry, it just doesn't feel like D&D if the default isn't spell slots. It's fun to have other options, but... this was one of the reasons 4e feels weird, and 5e feels right.
• Mechanical variety: Definitely the biggest strength of 3.5 is the sheer weight of options available. Not just the list of PrCs and the like, but the numerous subsystems and quirky classes. That's why maximizing compatability is so important
• Zero-to-hero growth: More than any other edition, 3.5 characters start off being vulnerable to kobolds, and finish up killing gods. It's a great, gonzo, kitchen-sink power grab, and that's part of the fun. Compare that to 5e, where you're always at least a little vulnerable to kobolds.
• Noncombat abilities: 3.5 mostly limits these to casters, but... like Cosi said, the presence of things like Teleport and Fabricate, the ability to raise armies with Animate Dead and Leadership, building castles with Wall of Stone, divinations and more, all give players the ability to interact with the world in new and exciting ways that other games frequently don't stop to think about.
• Game-changing abilities: A subset of the previous two points, 3.5 isn't afraid to give abilities that change the way the game is played. Rope Trick means that "nervously camping and keeping watch" is no longer an issue. Teleport means that travel simply isn't a major thing anymore. Plane Shift opens huge new visages for exploration. The sorts of adventures and challenges you can send a 3.5 party on change significantly from levels 1-20.

4e is way too restricted and structured for meaningful improvement without a complete redesign and 5e requires a complete rebuild if you don't like bounded accuracy.

Minor quibble: Bounded Accuracy is actually pretty easy to mitigate. Just double your Proficiency bonus*, then add half the value to AC and nonproficient saving throws. (And probably do something else with Expertise-- rerolls are an easy option). Keeps the math about the same for things at around your level, but makes the level gap start to matter a lot more. An kobold swinging for +4 still has a decent shot (~25%) at hitting a level 20 character with 20 AC, but +6 vs AC 26 is a whole different story (down to 5%/crits only).

*And probably edit the progression so it scales slightly more nicely)