What does the fighter need...

[awayfarer]

Fighters should get the Leadership feat for free at 10th level and gain a +1 bonus to their Leadership score at 11th, 13th, 17th and 19th level. IMO.

Might I ask why? I can't see a reason to justify this unless the character really is a "leader of men" type. A rude, uncharismatic boor of a character wouldn't seem to fit this.

Edit: Didn't see your second post. I dunno, I always pictured the fighter as the typical soldier/grunt and not necessarily a leader/general. The paladin or marshal seem more like the natural leader types. Largely I feel like if you were to go the leaderly route, you would want to start at lower level by adding a few social skills. A leader who can't even convince grandma to lend them a quarter doesn't seem very inspiring.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

For the GM, it's no different than the player choosing to take the feat on his own at 6th level or later.

I'm talking about NPCs here. I wouldn't want to have NPC fighter have to have a crowd following them.

For Fighters who don't have leadership qualities, that's what the additional boosts to their Leadership score are for.

The point would be to return the Fighter class to its archetypical roots as a combat hero and leader of men (Hannibal, Alexander, Odysseus, etc.) instead of leaving it as a generic class for hitting things. Players who didn't want the Leadership abilities could easily transfer to a PrC or multiclass to Barbarian or some other class after 9th level if they chose.

Some fighters are leaders, and others aren't. There's a big difference between Xu Chu (a large, stupid, musclebound bodyguard who wasn't a barbarian) and Liu Bei (a really good leader).

WotC would need to decide a class with actual leadership abilities that go beyond "random followers" to create a combat leader class.

Forcing a player to take a PrC is also bad form. Taking a PrC is supposed to specialize your character, not act as an escape valve from enforced specialization.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

A feat at every level.

 

[Ty]

I'm going to try the fighter as a martial adept in the current campaign. My alternate doesn't add anything to the fighter but expands the ToB rules a bit in the following ways:

- Fighter levels count as martial adept levels (for purposes of initiator level and such).
- Fighters can use bonus feats and general feats to choose a manuever/stance.
- Fighters may select manuevers/stances from any discipline.
- Fighters begin each encounter with all known manuevers readied.
- Fighters do not have a recovery method for manuevers during an encounter.
- Fighters do not have the ability to swap out a low level manuever/stance for a higher level manuever/stance.
- No expansion of skills or skill points.

Basically, this 'shouldn't' encourage a low level fighter to use feats for manuevers/stances but should at higher levels, when it is generally agreed that fighters peeter out a bit in power levels. Additionally, the skill-dependent manuevers and stances are still not as optimized for a fighter.

I'll probably write this up the campaign is finished to see how it compares to normal martial adepts, other classes, etc.

 

[Ourph]

Some fighters are leaders, and others aren't. There's a big difference between Xu Chu (a large, stupid, musclebound bodyguard who wasn't a barbarian) and Liu Bei (a really good leader).

Which is, I think, the problem with the current incarnation of the Fighter. The reason fighters tend to be so unsatisfying is because people choose to play then, often, as a stupid, musclebound bodyguard rather than as the generals and leaders on the field of combat that they were originally envisioned as in O/AD&D. Putting them back in the role of leader makes them a desirable class again.

In light of the new base classes mentioned above it's probably unnecessary, but in the absence of specialized fighter sub-type classes, I think the best way to make the Fighter stack up to other classes at higher levels is to follow the example of older editions and give them a small army to command at around 10th level. The Mob rules even make a horde of lower level followers easily usable in actual game play (at least as easy as a Druid's animal companion that is).

 

[Herzog]

Currently, the only 'specials' the fighter has are weapon specialization (which I personally don't like to keep away from other classes), bonus feats (which allows him to select his specialization, rather than having it thrust upon him like is the case with, for example, the barbarian) and his wide array of weapons.

I think full access to exotic weapons arount level 10 would be a nice addition.

I also think the fighter could use a boost at level 10+. As it is, especially spellcasters gain access to a wide array of very destructive capabilities, while the fighter is lucky to get a single bonus to attack, damage, and number of attacks.

Maybe something like increased critical threat range and/or increased critical multiplier at the higher levels? Although this sounds powerfull, think about the amount of damage a fireball does for a high level caster, not even counting the fact fireball is an area of effect spell...

Herzog

 

[Greg K]

1) more skill points and different paths like the thug variant
2) a nerf bat to the full casters at higher levels

 

[awayfarer]

I'm going to try the fighter as a martial adept in the current campaign. My alternate doesn't add anything to the fighter but expands the ToB rules a bit in the following ways:

*Snipped*

I'll probably write this up the campaign is finished to see how it compares to normal martial adepts, other classes, etc.

I was thinking of going this route as a concession between keeping it as core-oriented as possible but allowing a tie to the ToB. I'd be interested to hear how this works after it's been in play for a while. My campaign won't be starting for probably another 2-3 months.

 

[awayfarer]

Which is, I think, the problem with the current incarnation of the Fighter. The reason fighters tend to be so unsatisfying is because people choose to play then, often, as a stupid, musclebound bodyguard rather than as the generals and leaders on the field of combat that they were originally envisioned as in O/AD&D. Putting them back in the role of leader makes them a desirable class again.

I think the stupid, musclebound fighter syndrome is a problem with the player behind the character though. I understand that theres not a great deal of motivation to put decent scores into mental stats and as such, it's easier to go that route, but part of any character is the effort the player puts into it.

I think that only makes it more desirable to a segment of players. Personally I prefer loners/vagabonds.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the stupid, musclebound fighter syndrome is a problem with the player behind the character though. I understand that theres not a great deal of motivation to put decent scores into mental stats and as such, it's easier to go that route, but part of any character is the effort the player puts into it.

I think that only makes it more desirable to a segment of players. Personally I prefer loners/vagabonds.

Maybe I used a bad example there; I was basing him on a real life person.

I don't think the typical militia soldier becomes a leader over time. You can get experience and even Charisma and still not be a leader.