log in or register to remove this ad

 

E6: The Game Inside D&D

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ry

Explorer
Ioreck, what do you think of the Gestalt Approach, where although others can pick up feats, fighters could pick up, say Rage or spellcasting ability with enough feats?

To me this all says fighter is a little on the weak side to begin with.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well.... Fighters _do_ kinda suck. The only reason for taking them is the feats. Seems like every time I turn around there's some sort of thread about "How do you fix the fighter?" or "What do you do for fighters?" or "What is the best alternative to Fighters" or some other such thing.

Personally, I don't see the big deal with less fighters being played. It just means there's less Fighters being played. I don't have anything against Fighters, I actually tend to play 'em pretty regularly.

If you really want to encourage more fighters to be played... make some Fighter exclusive feats.

Professional Warrior
For each level of Fighter that a character has, add +1 to the damage inflicted by the Fighter in combat.

Lifetime of Experience
For every feat a Fighter has that is allowed as a Fighter Bonus Feat, add +1 to the damage the Fighter inflicts in combat.

Let them stack if you want to really encourage Fighters. So for example, a 6th level Fighter with both of those feats and 6 feats that show up on the Bonus Fighter List would be adding +12 to their damage. Not bad incentive right there.

If that's too over the top, then instead of having both of those feats being "always on", make the Fighter spend conviction for each of the feats. So that means that in order to get that sweet +12 damage, the Fighter in the example above would need to spend 2 Conviction.
 

wolfpunk

First Post
The fighter is only weak because the concept of E6 gives the fighter's milk away for free so to speak. If E6 gave characters +1d6 sneak attack every 5,000 xp after 6th level, the rogue would be getting the short end of the deal, if E6 gave characters a bonus arcane spell slot, wizards would complain, and so on.

Unless you come up with something that no character class has to begin with, one character class is always going to end up being less valued.
 

Aage

First Post
The easiest way to fix that (and to fix fighter in general) would be to give the fighter something that is not feats at the dead levels he has (in e6, that would be levels 3 and 5)...

Edit: Or, to scrap fighter and use warblade :D
 

wolfpunk

First Post
Another Idea

Fighter as an Armor Specialist

At 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th level the fighter decreases the ACP of any armor she wears and is proficient with by 1 to a minimum of 0 and increases the maximum dexterity bonus by 1 to a maximum of +12
 

Ry

Explorer
I disagree wolfpunk, I'm pretty sure the fighter sucks regardless, and the fact that fighter 6+ 5 feats is less appealing than barbarian 6 +5 feats just makes it more obvious.

BUT, and this is a big BUT: Like the Sorc/Wizard problem, I don't think the solution needs to be embedded in E6. It would be nice, but the more I see these discussions, the more approaches I see to the solutions.

Some GMs will allow AE fighter classes (totem warriors, unfettered, ritual warriors, and warmains). Some GMs will allow fighters to get better feats at lower levels. Some will give fighters cool abilities in their off levels (dead level anyone?). For me, these issues aren't sufficient to cause actual problems between my players, or between me and the players, so I leave them as they are because low-level tinkering without playtesting is a greater evil than a few conceptual issues with class balance. So I figure, in lieu of a great consensus on how to approach these issues in D&D, this is going to be a decision done by each GM anyway, so there's not a big point in locking E6 into one of those approaches.
 

wolfpunk

First Post
Probably just need more feats that require weapon specialization. Maybe I should write a PDF for E6 fighters.
 

Ry

Explorer
Oh, if you want to see some great Gestalt Approach feats, turn to the Generic Classes section of Unearthed Arcana. Several of those (the ones that fit under the cap) would work very well with only a few wording changes (for example, the damage listed for the sneak attack shouldn't stack with a rogue's sneak attack).
 

Aage

First Post
If using the favoured enemy feat from UA generics, I'd suggest putting a cap on how big a favoured bonus can become, otherwise you could have silly rangers running around with +40 something :D
 

Ioreck

First Post
I would avoid the gestalt idea - it encroaches too much on other classes. If you want rage, play a barbarian etc.

In my opinion the warblade is what a fighter should be. Playing as a warblade is the quickest fix.

Otherwise, i think incorporating the ph2 ideas would be good.

In my E6 style game, characters play the warblade, and i use the fighter for npcs.

So tehre are warriors, the common foes, fighters, the more experienced ones, and then character classes for the real challenges.

So, in a single encounter, the party may fight 4 level 1 warriors and a level 1 fighter.

In my campaign, where being greater than level 1 means you're pretty freakin skilled, the majority of opponents are going to be level 1. My rule of thumb: if you're greater than level 1, you get core class levels. If you're level 1 but you're like a leader of the crew, you get a fighter level (ie a bonus feat). Fighters DO suck regardless, but they're better than you're average warrior!

As to the *still* remaining major difference between casters and warriors, what i do is say when you get a second attack, its still at you're highest bab. So 6th level (epic in my campaign) with high BAB gives two +6/+6 attacks.
 
Last edited:

knight_isa

First Post
wolfpunk said:
Probably just need more feats that require weapon specialization. Maybe I should write a PDF for E6 fighters.

Requiring Weapon Specialization isn't enough, though. That just requires fighter-4.

I've been thinking about it, and really, the only reasons to stick with fighter past 4th are the high number of feats and the higher level fighter-only feats. When you stop at 6th, and everyone eventually gets lots of feats, that negates both of those reasons. After fighter-4, you'd become a better "fighter" by multiclassing into one or more of the many full BAB classes.

I think I'll be going with E8 since I think my sweet spot is a bit higher than 6th, and the presence of Greater Weapon Focus mitigates that issue for me somewhat. It would be nice to see more Fighter-only feats though.
 

Evilhalfling

Adventurer
hmm going off on a tangent -
unless you slow down xp gain as well, then the world have everyone and their mom at 6th level. But slowing down advancement means less leveling up fun for characters.
If I was to run a campaign that concentrated on a low levels, cutting xp gained to 1/2 and then each character gaining a feat at 1/2 way to the next level. this further devalues the fighter by giving everyone lots of feats up front. But everyone not playing a fighter might have more fun with it.

The problem with running E6 as a one shot (which I considered doing) is that its uniqueness is in the structure of the campaign world, and in general advancement, otherwise the limitations are no more than many normally found in one shots.



Another solution that would encourage single classing all Warrior types would be to withhold +6 BAB for all multi-classed warriors. (or require spending 10k to gain the last point.)
 

phindar

First Post
There's a lot you can do to fix Fighters under E6, but it seems like at that point we're making a new class just to preserve the name "Fighter". There's already a ton of base classes who fight, and the Fighter is still a good choice for a character that needs feats but doesn't plan to go Epic.
 

Matrix Sorcica

Adventurer
Let only single class fighters be able to qualify for feats beyond the 6 level limit, greater weapon focus, greater weapon spec., improved X etc.

Not sure it's enough, but it's a start.
 

Aage

First Post
phindar said:
There's a lot you can do to fix Fighters under E6, but it seems like at that point we're making a new class just to preserve the name "Fighter". There's already a ton of base classes who fight, and the Fighter is still a good choice for a character that needs feats but doesn't plan to go Epic.

Word! :p

No, but seriously, I agree actually. Saving the fighter because of his name is rather silly, and the fact of the matter is that any character that heavily depends on bonus feats (fighter, and psychic warrior to a lesser extent) will be significantly hampered in E6. For the fighter the fix is simple, Warblade. The psychic warrior on the other concerns me more, since there isn't really anything similar that could easily take its place (well, not for me at least, I don't use regular magic, just psionics).

Ah, well... Multiclassing will have to do, I guess ;)
 


Ry

Explorer
You don't have to get a splat book to play a fighter. You don't even need to fix the fighter. I don't fix the fighter, and my game runs fine, and it's still used. The fighter's weaknesses aren't so severe that it's not a viable PC. Some players will still take it because they want to be 4 feats ahead in some nifty feat chain.
 




Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top