Almost as good as the fighter

[Lord Mhoram]

The way I see it yes a Cleric Should be almost as a good as a fighter at fighting - when he uses his spell resources to do it. A fully buffed Cleric being almost the level of the fighter is good.

But if the Cleric uses those buffs on the fighter - Scary good.

Without magic - fighter wins a fight every time.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Likewise, healing needs to make a return as a choice. Swift action/minor action healing is not a real choice in most circumstances, especially when you do so at range (as in 4e). Healing should be a tactical and resource-intensive option when used in combat. In the event that an allie is reduced to -1 HP, the cleric needs to ask himself whether to use his spell slot, to attack the monster, or to do something else to aid in combat.

So we go back to healing for after combat like 3E. Or buy a wand of healing if they exist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Cleric and Rogue - an most classes - need to be competent combatants. Some classes might depend heavily on magic to be effective, but even they should be able to do /something/ worthwhile in melee or ranged combat.

The problem that keeps coming up with that, though, is that it leaves the fighter to justify his existence with a very slim superiority in combat, while being worthless out of combat. And that just doesn't work.

Clearly, WotC hasn't seen their way out of this box yet, or they wouldn't have mentioned how much trouble they're having with the fighter.

There are many possible solutions. 4e hit upon one that worked: in combat - it made ever class combat-effective, but also gave each, even the fighter, high enough peak power (in the form of dailies) that everyone could have a moment to shine in combat, and divided combat contribution up into roles that further let each class have their moments and distinctive contributions. It didn't work beyond combat, though. Skill-heavy rogues and diverse-utility and ritual- capable casters still dominated out of combat. Really, it wasn't so much that a few classes dominated out of combat, as that the fighter was distinctly left under-contributing out of combat.


With the idea of the 'Pillars' (combat, exploration, interaction) floating around, the door is open to finally solve this long-standing conundrum. Give each class competence in all three pillars. The Cleric and Rogue can be almost as good as the fighter in melee, because the fighter can be almost as good as the Cleric in a diplomatic intrigue or the rogue in a trap-filled dungeon.

 

[Sunseeker]

The Cleric and Rogue - an most classes - need to be competent combatants. Some classes might depend heavily on magic to be effective, but even they should be able to do /something/ worthwhile in melee or ranged combat.

The problem that keeps coming up with that, though, is that it leaves the fighter to justify his existence with a very slim superiority in combat, while being worthless out of combat. And that just doesn't work.

Clearly, WotC hasn't seen their way out of this box yet, or they wouldn't have mentioned how much trouble they're having with the fighter.

There are many possible solutions. 4e hit upon one that worked: in combat - it made ever class combat-effective, but also gave each, even the fighter, high enough peak power (in the form of dailies) that everyone could have a moment to shine in combat, and divided combat contribution up into roles that further let each class have their moments and distinctive contributions. It didn't work beyond combat, though. Skill-heavy rogues and diverse-utility and ritual- capable casters still dominated out of combat. Really, it wasn't so much that a few classes dominated out of combat, as that the fighter was distinctly left under-contributing out of combat.


With the idea of the 'Pillars' (combat, exploration, interaction) floating around, the door is open to finally solve this long-standing conundrum. Give each class competence in all three pillars. The Cleric and Rogue can be almost as good as the fighter in melee, because the fighter can be almost as good as the Cleric in a diplomatic intrigue or the rogue in a trap-filled dungeon.

Pathfinder has some good pointers, such as increasing armor profeciency allowing for a greater dex bonus, making two-weapon, heavy-armor fighting more realistic. A fighter is trained in heavy armor...shouldn't they get the best benefits from wearing it?
Making weapon math feats a default part of the class. The fighter hits more accurately and hard because that's what they're TRAINED to do.

Lets say for a second everyone has the same BAB, increasing by 1 every 2 levels for a maximum of +10 at 20th level.
How does the Fighter stand out here?
Maybe the fighter gets +1 hit/dmg every 4 levels, stacking with any other feats, the fighter now gets +15 at 20th level, and a +5 dmg bonus.
Maybe the fighter gets better proficiencies. Say most classes get +2 for being proficient with a weapon, lets say the fighter gets +3. The Fighter, even at level 1, is essentially starting with a Masterwork Weapon, and maintains this bonus till the end of the game.
The fighter is now a better hitter and a better damager without any special building tricks, the Rogue and the Cleric would both have to load up on math feats(which may not even exist) in order to cover this gap.
In the late levels of Pathfinder, the fighter gains DR5/- for wearing armor, ANY armor.

These are all perfectly intuitive concepts for the fighter. The fighter is simply better with weapons and armor AT THE SAME TIME than anyone else. A barbarian may hit harder, but they give up defense, a paladin may have more defense, but they give up accuracy or damage, the rogue hits more accurately, but for less damage and has less armor. The fighter is better at hitting, damaging, and defending all at once.