What do you think a Fighter should be?

[Gettles]

When you think of a Fighter, how what do you see them? And how strong do you feel they should become? At level one are the raw recruits or skilled warriors? At level twenty do you think they should be seen as close to as what a real-life master swordsman would be capable of? Perhaps closer to peak human specimen? Or should they have long since left human limitations behind and be an unstoppable engine of destruction such as the Juggernaut?

At levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 what do you think the fighter should be?

[hewhosaysfish]

When you think of a Fighter, how what do you see them? And how strong do you feel they should become? At level one are the raw recruits or skilled warriors? At level twenty do you think they should be seen as slimier as what a real-life master swordsman would be capable of? Perhaps closer to peak human specimen? Or should they have long since left human limitations behind and be an unstoppable engine of destruction such as the Juggernaut?

At levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 what do you think the fighter should be?

Slimier? Fighters are... slimy?

[Wolfer]

Slimier? Fighters are... slimy?

Depends on what they've been killing, doesn't it?

[DigoDragon]

As mages are masters of magic and able to manipulate the battlefield with spells, I see fighters and the masters of the physical side of combat, able to manipulate the field with tactical prowess.
It usually doesn't work out as ideally as that, but a well-structured party working together helps.

[Totally Guy]

There are a lot of assumptions baked into the question!

[Re'ozul]

Fighters should be the unquestioned masters of straight up tactical combat.
Able to keep interrupting enemies that want to get past them at the squichy ones, and able to take hits as well as effortlessly deflect them.

What Fighters should have in my opinion:

- Free Combat Reflexes with a minimum of 1 extra AoO regardless of Dex.
- Ability to intercept even when its not their turn. Basically, can move their speed as extra movement in one round in increments of 5 feet whenever it would stop someone from moving past them at the squishies.
- Ability to deflect blows. Effectively you can pit your attack roll against the enemies and if you are better the attack is deflected. Uses up one AoO.

[nedz]

I think a Fighter should be better, at least in 3.5

[Sutremaine]

I quite like GrodTheGiant's Fighter reboot. I forget the specifics, but they had a nice set of class abilities that in the RAW game would take an entire feat chain just to get part of that capability. Still no flight or teleportation, but that's an area in which mages (and anything but setpiece encounters) need to be brought down instead of melee fighters being raised up.

Fighters need to be able to tank, pretty much. Not with 4e-style 'attack me or else' abilities, but with basic rules of the game that allow anyone to slow down an enemy trying to get at the squishies but which make characters with Fighter levels the absolute best at it.

[Urpriest]

I think this is an adequate summary of what the Fighter archetype entails.

[Clawhound]

What do you need to engage a dragon? If you answer that, you've got most of what I think a fighter should be.

[Libertad]

Since Dungeons & Dragons is a game full of monsters and spellcasters capable of pulling of superhuman feats, a Fighter should get superhuman abilities around the middle levels (8+).

Ideally, a Fighter archetype would be capable of contributing outside of combat as well. Different archetypes for different stuff: a guerrilla commando can create traps and hide from the enemies (including magical detection), an inspiring warlord can grant "buff" effects to his allies, etc.

Also, a Fighter (and noncasters in general) need abilities which can circumvent or resist magical effects. A fighter might be capable of smashing through a forcecage or indestructible magical wall with "sheer martial power/force of will/etc." Or able to detect invisible and incorporeal opponents by "listening to the air."

[neonchameleon]

When you think of a Fighter, how what do you see them? And how strong do you feel they should become? At level one are the raw recruits or skilled warriors? At level twenty do you think they should be seen as close to as what a real-life master swordsman would be capable of? Perhaps closer to peak human specimen? Or should they have long since left human limitations behind and be an unstoppable engine of destruction such as the Juggernaut?

At levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 what do you think the fighter should be?

Assuming we're talking 3.5 level range here:

Fightes should be the most dangerous people on the battlefield, and among the toughest. If you take your eye off the fighter for an instant you are dead meat.

Level 1: Strong, tough, shows potential. Blooded warrior.

Level 5: About as fit, strong, and versatile as an olympic pentathlete. Except in a much, much bloodier school. Peak human is around this point.

Level 10: The bastard offspring of John McClane, Indiana Jones, and Conan. Can find the weak point to knock down walls in less than a minute. Doesn't even need to roll to kill anyone who isn't a major boss monster (e.g. dragons, beholders, major demons, seriously named blackguards - wizards never qualify) or someone with five levels in non-casting classes (incl. Paladins and Rangers) as a standard melee action. Tough enough to shrug off almost all spells not cast by a God (but this does nothing against indirect spellcasting like walls or flight).

Alternatively the AD&D version: a major badass capable of shrugging off most spells and who comes with his own army. Also the game changes here - and the most powerful PC in Greyhawk was Level 14 (Robilar).

Level 15: At this level if the fighter gets line of sight on anything non-martial it dies. He can pin a fly to a tree with a dagger from 50', behind him. If level 15 fighter brings his sword down on anything it breaks - this includes things like Prismatic Spheres (and any other spell) or even cutting the tops off mountains, Celtic Myth style - or he can cause an earthquake by smashing a mace into the ground. He is more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Any wizard stupid enough to try casting a spell on the fighter when the fighter knows about it finds that the fighter simply plays baseball and bats it back. Or can put a dagger through his eyeball from 100' away before he's finished casting even a quickened spell.

Level 20: If he dies he beats up death itself to return to life. He can cut through the walls between planes with his sword and run faster than a speeding bullet. (Speed breaks things).

[johnroth]

A fighter should be a person with a weapon that they forcefully puts into other things in an effort to cause them grievous bodily harm. Could be anything. A bandit, their mom, a chair. I don't care.

[Slipperychicken]

The Fighter should be the guy who can deliver a beatdown no matter what. It shouldn't matter if his enemy is a Wizard, a Dragon, an Ooze, a Demon, or a mind-eating eldritch horror. The Fighter should perform well, whether he's swinging a scimitar, tossing a spear, firing arrows, flinging rocks, or smacking someone with his fists. A magic wall should only inconvenience a Fighter, not stop him.

There should not be ways to render the Fighter obsolete. Summons should not be nearly as strong as the Fighter. Miss chances should not make the Fighter worthless. Flight should not make the Fighter worthless. Whether this is accomplished by making the Fighter highly resistant to these, or giving him powers to deal with them, or changing the nature of these mechanics so they do not stop him completely, is not as important.

The Fighter must have viable innate defenses against all forms of attack, including mental attacks. That is to say, he must be reasonably able to resist any form of assault (whether through a saving throw, or his Hit Points, or anything else). There should not be a "no button" to the Fighter. Conversely, the Fighter should be able to fight and defeat all types of opponents, whether they're misty and insubstantial, or masters of magic, or giant monsters.


In short: The Fighter must be the best at fighting. Other classes might be situationally strong (like getting surprise, or fighting a certain enemy type) and be weak when their tricks don't work (or have a strict tradeoff between combat ability and out-of-combat ability), but the Fighter will kick ass in every fight, no matter what.

[JellyPooga]

...a Fighter should get superhuman abilities around the middle levels (8+).

This is a sentiment that I totally disagree with. I'm going to say something that might be considered slightly controversial now...the Tome of Battle did it wrong.

Sure it may have brought so-called martial classes closer into line with the "top tier" caster classes, power-wise, but it did it by making them non-marital and more magical. Some of the abilities were ok, but many of them were just magical effects with a mundane label (and some not even that). It also made the mistake of making these so-called martial effects behave mechanically like spells and spell-like effects; something that 4ed did to the detriment of the game (in my opinion, of course).

The "martial" character, the Fighter being the foremost proponent of the title, should be everything the Wizard, Cleric and other spellcasters and characters are not. The Fighter should have a firm grounding in reality; he should be a foil to magic by the mere fact of how mundane he is. The Fighter should be more than a greatsword toting beat-stick; he should be a master of exotic weaponry, an adept of many styles, able as easily to take up a lance and pierce the dragons heart as he can hew his way through lesser warriors with his trusty battle axe. He should be the guy who can spot the tactical advantage and exploit it, the guy with the magic sword leading the charge and the one that everyone sees as the man of the hour, champion of the battlefield and hero of the people whilst the magician is too mistrusted, the priest only doing the duty expected of him and the thief merely a background presence at best.

In short, I don't think Charisma should neccesarily be a dump stat for the Fighter. Think of every warrior protagonist you've ever read about or seen in a film...Boromir, the archetypal Fighter, was loved by his father and his people both, whilst Faramir, the so-called "wizards pupil", took a mere second place in their eyes. Conan, though a pirate, mercenary and barbarian, was held in awe by those who met him; men would die for him and women willingly give themselves to him (though admitedly they sometimes required, uh, persuasion). I think this kind of "hero status" should be part and parcel of being a Fighter, far more so than any other class, simply because it's something that is seen so often in fiction (and, if truth be told, history as well...throughout recorded history until very recently, it's always been the strongest, the most skilled in battle that have dominated society, whilst the advisors and instigators take a more secondary role).

[Flame of Anor]

I wish I were making a sword-and-sorcery movie, so that I could steal some of these quotes and give them to the guy who trains the hero.

[Ravenica]

I have been considering making fighters more viable by reducing their xp to level

it makes no sense that it takes a fighter as long as a wizard to hit 16-17 bab as it does for 9th spell level.

How is their bab progression and extra hp and feats just as hard to master as the arcane might to warp reality to whims?

[Urpriest]

I have been considering making fighters more viable by reducing their xp to level

it makes no sense that it takes a fighter as long as a wizard to hit 16-17 bab as it does for 9th spell level.

How is their bab progression and extra hp and feats just as hard to master as the arcane might to warp reality to whims?

Because they're supposed to be just as effective in-game-world. Otherwise the CR system is even more meaningless than it already was.

[Quellian-dyrae]

Short version, if a fighter is level X, it should be able to compete with other level X characters.

Long version, it might have some degree of an advantage in combat, and pay for it with reduced out of combat utility, but I don't agree with the idea that the fighter should be vastly superior in battle. However, it shouldn't just be able to be shut down.

The problem is that wizards have a serious weakness in their base stats, but loads of ways to cover it up. Fighters have a great strength in their base stats, but there exist far too many ways to circumvent the stats entirely. If the fighter is supposed to be a defensive class, and the wizard a squishy one, then the fighter should generally be able to withstand a concentrated assault, and the wizard not, whether that assault is physical, energy, psychic, melee, ranged, whatever.

Certain characters may be better or worse against certain things, and may even specifically take a weakness, but giant gaping defensive holes should not be built into a defensive class.

--

Although a concept that I also find interesting is a more rock-paper-scissors style of balance between fighters, mages, and monsters. The fighters have the high stats, so they have a high chance at succeeding to defend against/overcome/otherwise deal with the spells the mages throw (save against the attack spells, dodge the rays, strength check to ignore the battlefield control, whatever). They also, due to statistical superiority, only need to land a couple solid shots to bring down a mage, whereas the mage probably needs to unload a good clip of blasts to take out the fighter, and can only keep it disabled for a short time before good ol' heroic willpower throws the enchantment off.

However, monsters have powerful inherent abilities and odd but exploitable weaknesses. The fighters have trouble against monsters, because hack and slash until it dies doesn't always work, but the mages have all these tricks that they can use to counter their offenses and exploit their weaknesses. A giant is a massive ol' hunk of combat stats, but is vulnerable to enchantments and has squat danger sense for dealing with invisible foes. You can't stab a ghost, but a circle of protection can keep it at bay, and a divination can reveal how to put it to rest. Trolls regenerate as fast as you can hurt them, but engulf them in a fireball and they can't heal, and their rending claws are not very effective against foes a hundred feet in the air. And so on.

Not to say that each should be useless against the opposing one. A skilled fighter who is careful or lucky or just plain higher level can take on a giant, and might be able to get creative or acquire relevant gear (sword-and-torch against the troll, stake-and-cross for the vampire, silver weapon for the werewolf). A mage can still blast its way through a fighter's hit points given enough time, and with some good rolls keep it disabled frequently enough to play keep away. A monster is probably buff enough to out-stat the mage, especially if it can catch it unprepared. But each one has its advantages and disadvantages.

[Seerow]

This is a sentiment that I totally disagree with. I'm going to say something that might be considered slightly controversial now...the Tome of Battle did it wrong.

Sure it may have brought so-called martial classes closer into line with the "top tier" caster classes, power-wise, but it did it by making them non-marital and more magical. Some of the abilities were ok, but many of them were just magical effects with a mundane label (and some not even that). It also made the mistake of making these so-called martial effects behave mechanically like spells and spell-like effects; something that 4ed did to the detriment of the game (in my opinion, of course).

It's almost like I'm reading a checklist of things to look for in someone who has never played, or possibly read, Tome of Battle.

The "martial" character, the Fighter being the foremost proponent of the title, should be everything the Wizard, Cleric and other spellcasters and characters are not.

So nothing? He's already a good part of the way there.

The Fighter should have a firm grounding in reality; he should be a foil to magic by the mere fact of how mundane he is. The Fighter should be more than a greatsword toting beat-stick; he should be a master of exotic weaponry, an adept of many styles, able as easily to take up a lance and pierce the dragons heart as he can hew his way through lesser warriors with his trusty battle axe. He should be the guy who can spot the tactical advantage and exploit it, the guy with the magic sword leading the charge

These don't sound like much more than more feats. Nothing that allows for being competitive with casters.

and the one that everyone sees as the man of the hour, champion of the battlefield and hero of the people whilst the magician is too mistrusted, the priest only doing the duty expected of him and the thief merely a background presence at best.

So DM favoritism and fluff rewards for being the most useless character in the group. Somehow I don't see this going over well.

[navar100]

I'm all for a fighter being a bada$$, master of tactical combat, eventually being of such prowess even a dragon would take pause. However, that should not come at the expense of making spellcasters chumps of pathetic nobodies. Not that I really think 3E fighters suck, but it's not the wizard's fault the fighter sucks and should not be punished for it. There's plenty of room for both the warrior and spellcaster to be omnipotent terrors against all monsters.

Fighters should not have 100% or close to it immunity to every possible instance of hostile magic all the time, every time, suck it wizard. A flat 50% is boring. I'm fine with 100% or close to it for some magic but quite vulnerable to others and everywhere in between for everything else, mix and match to taste depending upon various builds of flexible choices.

[Remmirath]

When you think of a Fighter, how what do you see them?

As a class specialising in either melee or ranged combat, or both. Very good at killing things. Fairly good at staying alive (more so than clerics, thieves and especially mages).

And how strong do you feel they should become? At level one are the raw recruits or skilled warriors? At level twenty do you think they should be seen as close to as what a real-life master swordsman would be capable of? Perhaps closer to peak human specimen? Or should they have long since left human limitations behind and be an unstoppable engine of destruction such as the Juggernaut?

I feel they should become quite strong, although I'm not sure how to answer 'how strong' very accurate. Clearly, to me, they should be the class that is most competent in combat, and against a single opponent they should be capable of handling themselves at least as well as any other class.

I think that, at level twenty, it should be more the master swordsman. I see level twenty as the highest level that people are generally expected to reach, and so at that point they should ideally be at the pinnacle of their profession.

At levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 what do you think the fighter should be?

At level one, I think they are raw recruits. At level one, I imagine every class is just starting out, barely out of apprenticeship if that - after all, the base XP for level one is 0.

By fifth level they should be reasonably competent, although nothing to write home about in terms of skill. By tenth, they should be starting to be recognised as powerful, and by fifteenth they should compare with a fairly high ranking soldier in some army. By twentieth, they should be able to expect to be better than most all enemy soldiers that they meet. Other classes ought to follow a similar pattern, in my opinion, although of course not precisely the same.

I would also say that the number of weapons that they master should go up in those jumps, or possibly even more frequently.

Basically, I think that a fighter should be the best at combat, be it melee or ranged. They should be proficient in most any style of combat, and excel at several. They should, of course, not be invulnerable and unbeatable, because that's no fun - just very good, and very tough. Aside from using magical equipment, they shouldn't use magic, and shouldn't have to.

[Slipperychicken]

To make the non-magical guy with a stick to work, you need the system well-balanced with them in mind.

If you're going to have things like Flight and Invisibility in the game (which they shouldn't be IMO, since they're very powerful effects), the Fighter needs to be able to compete. Maybe he becomes enough of a hardcore badass to beat these things by virtue of his class abilities. Maybe magic or Ki see how awesome he is and start attaching to him as he grows in level, allowing him to do things which "Muggles" couldn't otherwise (see magic in the air, use his sword as a boomerang, cut spells in half, step through dimensions, etc). He should also be able to inflict more status effects and replicate spell effects (smack someone on the head to trigger a Save vs. Daze, knock people around by hitting them really hard, move so fast he can't be seen, etc).


An easier way would be to play a low-magic system (sort of like TES). That is, one where magic doesn't have so many "game-changers" and "plot breakers" like Invisibility, Flight, Teleport, and so on. Mental control is very limited, and essentially constitutes a bonus on social skills. Most spells are either blasting, shielding, have a long casting time, or are otherwise severely restricted (costly components, short duration, etc). The Fighter is at home here; he can stand up to warlocks and magicians, snapping their pencil-necks in a straight-up fight, as he should. Of course, if the magicians have time to scheme or gather their own fighting-men to hold him back, then the Fighter should be wary, or make preparations of his own...

[obryn]

Frankly, I think the 4e Fighter is darn close to ideal. They dominate the battlefield, crush their opposition, and hinder enemies from doing anything more useful than flailing uselessly against their superior armor and health.

-O

[Knaight]

A Fighter should be something the roleplaying community looks back on as a novelty, seen as a poorly made class long after class systems have been largely abandoned for generally being inferior methods for all that they are.

[JellyPooga]

It's almost like I'm reading a checklist of things to look for in someone who has never played, or possibly read, Tome of Battle.

You're right, I've never really given ToB more than a brief skim (which, for me, constitutes a fairly thorough reading by anyone elses standards). This is largely because I took one look at what they were trying to do with marital classes and considered it a poor way to go. Sue me.

These don't sound like much more than more feats. Nothing that allows for being competitive with casters.

Yeah, I think that a Fighters abilities should work much like Feats. Per day or per encounter abilities that have effects like teleport, healing and AoE fire effects are the realm of wizards and clerics, not fighters. It's rather one of the points of being a Fighter that, if he so chooses, he can simply rinse and repeat the same moves over and over.

So DM favoritism and fluff rewards for being the most useless character in the group. Somehow I don't see this going over well.

I'm rather saying that part and parcel of being a Fighter should include these kind of things instead of making it "DM favouritism", as you call it. The Wizard gets awesome spells, the Cleric gets the favour of the gods, Rogues get to be the guy behind the scenes and the Fighter is the one in the spotlight, whatever that may mean; followers, titles, morale bonuses for their allies or morale penalties for their enemies, circumstance bonuses in social situations, that sort of thing. The Aura abilities of the Marshal are along the lines of the kind of thing I imagine should be part of the Fighter, myself. In fact, were you to kind of mash together some of the 'splinter-class' fighters of later publications, like the Marshal, Knight and Swashbuckler, then you might end up with something that resembles what I consider the Fighter should be.

[GeriSch]

A Fighter should be like Riddick. Yes, he kills you with his Teacup

gr,
Geri

[pffh]

A fighter should be like the heroes of myth. The ones that wrestled dragons for fun and could lay waste to whole armies and cut mountains in two with a single swing of their sword. This grounded in reality stuff needs to stop.

[neonchameleon]

You're right, I've never really given ToB more than a brief skim (which, for me, constitutes a fairly thorough reading by anyone elses standards). This is largely because I took one look at what they were trying to do with marital classes and considered it a poor way to go. Sue me.



Yeah, I think that a Fighters abilities should work much like Feats. Per day or per encounter abilities that have effects like teleport, healing and AoE fire effects are the realm of wizards and clerics, not fighters. It's rather one of the points of being a Fighter that, if he so chooses, he can simply rinse and repeat the same moves over and over.

Apparently a skim for you is a skim for anyone else - you've managed to entirely miss how the Bo9S works. There are three classes in the Bo9S not one - and the fighter maps to the Warblade. The Warblade has direct access to five of the nine schools. The Teleports are part of Shadow Hand (the Ninja school) -Warblades don't have access. The AoE fire is Desert Wind. Warblades don't have access. Both these schools belong to Swordsages - a medium BAB class that is magical. And the healing is almost all Devoted Spirit - once again Warblades don't have access. Devoted Spirit belongs to Crusaders - who replace Paladins. Are you saying Paladins shouldn't heal?

And doing the same moves over in different situations and expecting no one to learn them is part of what makes fighters tedious in pre 4e (or rather pre Bo9S) for me.

[JellyPooga]

There are three classes in the Bo9S not one - and the fighter maps to the Warblade.

You're correct, yes, that I chose three examples of maneuvers that the Warblade doesn't have access to. This is largely because they are some of the only examples that I remember from reading a book I had access to for a short period of time several years ago. I've got a good memory, but it's not an eidetic one, sorry.

That the Warblade doesn't have access to the particular examples I gave is besides the point; there are others that the Warblade does have access to that have similar psuedo-magical effects. Admittedly, not perhaps as overtly so as those that the Swordsage gets, but they crossed the line enough for me to ditch the book as something I wasn't interested in.

As for repetitious actions, yeah, it's something that the Fighter has long been prone to. This is because the combat system in D&D has long been quite abstract; HP do not map directly to "health", the "attack roll" is not just a single swing of your sword, etc. I'll not deny that it can be boring, but for me half the point of being a Fighter style character is that you have the freedom to do as you please instead of being restricted to the limited effects of the written spells and abilites of other classes. Maybe it's just my experience from playing AD&D, where 'combat maneuvers' like shoving enemies aside, tripping them up and such were something done on the fly and just given an ad-hoc ruling by the GM instead of relying on a rule to do it for us. The very basic combat system was just used as a framework to hang the rest of the actual action instead of the be-all and end-all of the Fighters role. One of the things I disliked most about 3ed is that it pinned those "moves" down with rules and made them very difficult or even impossible to achieve without the requisite Feat or Class ability.