Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Votan 12-22-06, 11:24 PM	The fighter seems to be the default class to represent the Hero of fantasy literature. The Paladin is more suited to the role mechanically except that the spells and the alignment restrictions just are broad. But the weak saves and the difficulty of making feats pay off well enough makes it hard for the Fighter to fulfill this role. I was thinking that most heroes fell into one of three categories. Below are the suggestions and a possible mechanical way to represent it. The Good "I am the best at what I do and what I do isn't pretty." The ultimate killing machine, these heroes are good by being the absolute best at something. Pick a weapon (or your fists). You do +1 damage at first level. This increases to +2 at 5th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 15th and +5 at 20th. This is an unnamed bonus that stacks with all other sources. The Skilled "Horizontal boosters. Alluvial dampers. Ow. That's not it, bring me the Hydrospanner. I don't know how we're going to get out of this one. " These heroes are good at improvisation. They are skilled and able to put things together in the blink of an eye. They get 6 skill points per level (like a Ranger) and pick any 4 skills to add to the fighter class skill list. The Lucky "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." Some people are just born lucky. These heroes have all good saving throws (like Monks). They are just good at getting out of scrapes and even when they try ridiculous things they seem to get away with it. Thoughts?
OneWinged4ngel 12-23-06, 12:19 AM	The fighter seems to be the default class to represent the Hero of fantasy literature. The Paladin is more suited to the role mechanically except that the spells and the alignment restrictions just are broad. But the weak saves and the difficulty of making feats pay off well enough makes it hard for the Fighter to fulfill this role. I was thinking that most heroes fell into one of three categories. Below are the suggestions and a possible mechanical way to represent it. The Good "I am the best at what I do and what I do isn't pretty." The ultimate killing machine, these heroes are good by being the absolute best at something. Pick a weapon (or your fists). You do +1 damage at first level. This increases to +2 at 5th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 15th and +5 at 20th. This is an unnamed bonus that stacks with all other sources. The Skilled "Horizontal boosters. Alluvial dampers. Ow. That's not it, bring me the Hydrospanner. I don't know how we're going to get out of this one. " These heroes are good at improvisation. They are skilled and able to put things together in the blink of an eye. They get 6 skill points per level (like a Ranger) and pick any 4 skills to add to the fighter class skill list. The Lucky "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." Some people are just born lucky. These heroes have all good saving throws (like Monks). They are just good at getting out of scrapes and even when they try ridiculous things they seem to get away with it. Thoughts? Obviously unbalanced against each other. "Hmm! Should I get all good saves, 6 skill points and extra class skills (including UMD, so you can pretend to be a good class!), or a craptastic damage bonus with only one weapon?" It would take an int of less than 8 to make one of these choices. The Good = The worst, hands down. Absolutely no contest. Also, what do you think the Fighter's role is? Many would say "Tanking," though that's not even one of his better points... (He really does lack much in the way of tanking skills) and you haven't really done anything to make him a good tank (A tank needs to prevent allies from taking damage, usually by battlefield control. Some more resilience from, say, saves is not going to help that. Indeed, it is going to further encourage people to just go around you.)
Votan 12-23-06, 12:37 AM	Obviously unbalanced against each other. "Hmm! Should I get all good saves, 6 skill points and extra class skills (including UMD, so you can pretend to be a good class!), or a craptastic damage bonus with only one weapon?" It would take an int of less than 8 to make one of these choices. The Good = The worst, hands down. Absolutely no contest. Also, what do you think the Fighter's role is? Many would say "Tanking," though that's not even one of his better points... (He really does lack much in the way of tanking skills) and you haven't really done anything to make him a good tank (A tank needs to prevent allies from taking damage, usually by battlefield control. Some more resilience from, say, saves is not going to help that. Indeed, it is going to further encourage people to just go around you.) Well, I was makign a random proposal to start a conversation and not necessarily thinking that I had this figured out. I was worried that a larger bonus (stacking with weapon specialization) would be too much. In terms of role, I was actually moving away from the tank and towards the hero. In my group (a limited experience but the one that formed this idea), I see people take Fighter to be the generic hero. As a point of fact, it was the first 3rd edition class that I played (with memories of 1st and 2nd edition) and boy was I disappointed. The idea is that the Fighter is close to being decent. However, some small improvements might make the class much closer to the classic hero and reduce the "hyper-optimization" that I find needed to be done to make a fighter really viable at mid-levels. Sure, a Warblade is still a better class to me but this was just a thought. These sorts of bonuses don't have to provide focus so much as make the class more fun in some way. I tried to pick things that rewarded staying in Fighter as saves, skills and a level dependent damage bonus all work against dipping.
OneWinged4ngel 12-23-06, 12:46 AM	Well, I was makign a random proposal to start a conversation and not necessarily thinking that I had this figured out. I was worried that a larger bonus (stacking with weapon specialization) would be too much. In terms of role, I was actually moving away from the tank and towards the hero. In my group (a limited experience but the one that formed this idea), I see people take Fighter to be the generic hero. "Hero" isn't a mechanical party role, last I checked...
theotherdraxen 12-23-06, 12:49 AM	Well, I was makign a random proposal to start a conversation and not necessarily thinking that I had this figured out. I was worried that a larger bonus (stacking with weapon specialization) would be too much. Not to discourage you, but there are other fighter threads and fixes. Ask around (I don't have any links on me, sorry). Besides, if you have a concept you are trying to create, and it doesn't seem to fit any of the currently existing classes, ask the CO boards for help. They're good at fitting a concept and making it not suck. Make sure you check out their posting guidelines, though. The idea is that the Fighter is close to being decent. It is largely agreed that he isn't this, though. The fighter simply cannot compete. As he progresses, his dead levels slow him down in his process of acquiring a large pool of low-level abilites. For more on this, see Thomas Covenant's link in my sig. Sure, a Warblade is still a better class to me but this was just a thought. These sorts of bonuses don't have to provide focus so much as make the class more fun in some way. I tried to pick things that rewarded staying in Fighter as saves, skills and a level dependent damage bonus all work against dipping. True, but the issue isn't the fighters damage pool. There are a number of issues, one of them being that he's a one-trick pony, despite his apparent versatility.
Votan 12-23-06, 12:52 AM	"Hero" isn't a mechanical party role, last I checked... True, but it is a character concept. In many groups people don't fill out party roles. My gaming group has only started recently and, even so, strange roles get completely omitted (arcane casters and rogues being the least likely things to show up unless I am a player). The idea of a fighter seems to be "Generalist" as far as I can tell. I want somebody who will be competent at a lot of things is the approach that I have seen in the naive pick of the Fighter. So this was a push towards broadening the "good at many things" or "everyman" aspects of the fighter. Good for party focus or roles, not really. But if it makes the class more fun and allows different fighters to play even more differently (they already due given feats) then I thought that was kind of neat. Maybe it was a bad idea, but I figured it was worth having a "conversation over beer about". Or, in this case, a few random posts on a message board. :)
OneWinged4ngel 12-23-06, 12:53 AM	True, but it is a character concept. OBVIOUSLY. And yet, I had asked for what you viewed as the mechanical role of the Fighter (and even clarified), not what flavor concept you had! -_- As for being a generalist, your fighter fix is anything but. He's not much different than the core fighter except for upping the numbers (except for the skilled variant, which actually lets you fill an additional role competently, especially with UMD), and the core fighter is one of the least versatile and most focused classes in the game.
Votan 12-23-06, 01:13 AM	OBVIOUSLY. And yet, I had asked for what you viewed as the mechanical role of the Fighter, not what flavor concept you had! -_- As for being a generalist, your fighter fix is anything but. He's not much different than the core fighter except for upping the numbers (except for the skilled variant, which actually lets you fill an additional role competently, especially with UMD), and the core fighter is one of the least versatile and most focused classes in the game. Okay, I misread your request. The role of a Fighter in a party appears to be: -> Being hard to kill (surviving) -> Inflicting damage on enemies to kill melee or ranged weapons -> Protecting weaker party members The first is accomplished with high hit points and a good fortitude save. In general the monk accomplishes this better. However, some very impressive defensive builds are possible focusing on very high armor class. Focus here seems to involve some variant of shield and weapon. The second is done using feats to accelerate the basic combat potential of a +1 BAB class. Usually, I think that Barbarians do this better for melee. The edge reduces as you introduce non-core material but that usually seems to end up helping the Paladin more than the Fighter. The third is usually what is meant by "Tanking". This appears to be what the spiked chain tripper fighter build is all about. This is a very awkward role to directly fill with other classes; especially at low levels. At medium levels the Druid seems to do exceptionally well at in using wildshape into forms with reach and Clerics also appear to do well. The psychic warrior always appears to be at risk of doing this well. At very high levels the wizard and the sorcerer appear to be able to use magic to control the battlefield better than a tripper ever could. Since the Fighter appears to do poorly at all three roles above, I was thinking about the generic "can do many things okay" approach by expanding the class out. In general, if the Able Learner feat can be begged borrowed or stolen, then I tend to think that the above can be accomplished by aggressive multi-classing. The real reason to consider a human fighter at all (otherwise a Dwarf seems to be the best choice). If you want to make the Fighter good at battlefield control, soemthing like the Pyschic Warrior, Cleric or Warblade (Tiger school for example) seem like stronger mechanical choices and appear to do the Tank role better.
megageek12 12-23-06, 01:16 AM	If you want a real tank use my Juggernaut.
OneWinged4ngel 12-23-06, 01:19 AM	Okay, I misread your request. Multiple times, too? The role of a Fighter in a party appears to be: -> Being hard to kill (surviving) -> Inflicting damage on enemies to kill melee or ranged weapons -> Protecting weaker party members The first is accomplished with high hit points and a good fortitude save. Not really... the Fighter is one of the easiest to take out of a fight... and many other classes are EASILY much harder to take out. The second is done using feats to accelerate the basic combat potential of a +1 BAB class. Usually, I think that Barbarians do this better for melee. The edge reduces as you introduce non-core material but that usually seems to end up helping the Paladin more than the Fighter. Fighter's aren't great damage dealers, but they do everything else so badly that all they do is "kinda sorta lame damage dealer. Maybe an annoying distraction for enemies or resource sink that hinders the party." At least, that's how it works out at higher levels. The third is usually what is meant by "Tanking". This appears to be what the spiked chain tripper fighter build is all about. This is a very awkward role to directly fill with other classes; especially at low levels. At medium levels the Druid seems to do exceptionally well at in using wildshape into forms with reach and Clerics also appear to do well. The psychic warrior always appears to be at risk of doing this well. At very high levels the wizard and the sorcerer appear to be able to use magic to control the battlefield better than a tripper ever could. A tripper can't control the battlefield with any sort of efficiency at mid-high levels. Trips don't work on higher level enemies. Since the Fighter appears to do poorly at all three roles above, I was thinking about the generic "can do many things okay" approach by expanding the class out. And you've not really done that at all. Your fighters are still very focused one trick ponies, except for the skilled variant, which is good because he can pick his class skills (and take UMD and such things) and max those out. Your fighter isn't a generalist at all... and if you want versatility you should just look at Seerow's fix. In general, if the Able Learner feat can be begged borrowed or stolen, then I tend to think that the above can be accomplished by aggressive multi-classing. The real reason to consider a human fighter at all (otherwise a Dwarf seems to be the best choice). The only good mechanic reason to take a fighter is to dip. Your changes don't alter that at all. If you want to make the Fighter good at battlefield control, soemthing like the Pyschic Warrior, Cleric or Warblade (Tiger school for example) seem like stronger mechanical choices and appear to do the Tank role better. Of course.
Votan 12-23-06, 01:45 AM	Multiple times, too? Misreading one request can make the later requests seem a bit odd out of context. Anyway, discussing my sub-optimal Friday night reading skills probably doesn't fit into the topic. :) Not really... the Fighter is one of the easiest to take out of a fight... and many other classes are EASILY much harder to take out. Fighter's aren't great damage dealers, but they do everything else so badly that all they do is "kinda sorta lame damage dealer. Maybe an annoying distraction for enemies or resource sink that hinders the party." At least, that's how it works out at higher levels. This is kind of what I was thinking with improving these features. I find the weak will saves of the Fighter just beg for an opponent to try Dominate. Now, it is true that there is a first level cleric spell counter. But the resiliance of the Cleric can easily end up being higher than a Fighter. If you are in core, it is obvious after about level 5 that the cleric is more survivable than the fighter. At very low levels the fighter performs reasonably well. But it is astonishing how quickly the fighter ends up sub-par. A tripper can't control the battlefield with any sort of efficiency at mid-high levels. Trips don't work on higher level enemies. And you've not really done that at all. Your fighters are still very focused one trick ponies, except for the skilled variant, which is good because he can pick his class skills (and take UMD and such things) and max those out. Your fighter isn't a generalist at all... and if you want versatility you should just look at Seerow's fix. The only good mechanic reason to take a fighter is to dip. Your changes don't alter that at all. Interestingly, I went and looked up Thomas Covenent's fighter critique and I discovered two interesting things: 1) the Warblade appears to meet these criticisms better than the Fighter and 2) the lack of skills appears to be the worst part in terms of removing any secondary role to the Fighter. Tripping is a cool dueling tactic and, with enlarge person and reach weapons, seems to at least make the Fighter noticed by things running past to grapple the wizard. But it fails too often at high levels. I often argue that you could do better with a divine heavy party of: Cleric, Druid, Rogue and Wizard then the iconic party of: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard assuming that you started at level 10+ Anyway, it was a quick idea and maybe too ill thought out compared to alternatives around. But it was pretty clear to me that the Fighter worked poorly when I tried it and I am noticing a repeat of this issue currently in my gaming group where the two Fighters are in danger of lagging compared to other characters (Druid, Bard/Sorcerer gesalt and Cleric). Thanks for the comments though as I was looking for a lively discussion and that definitely showed up.
Jenrock 12-23-06, 12:29 PM	One thing that could go towards balancing these against each other is to give the "Good" fighter a bonus to attack and damage. The bonuses stay mainly the same, but it even things out a little bit more (at least in my mind).
megageek12 12-23-06, 12:32 PM	Hero: He also gains an unarmed damage progression, so that even when he loses his weapon he can still put up a fight. So he is never "at a loss".