E6: The Game Inside D&D

[Ry]

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.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

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]

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]

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

 

[wolfpunk]

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]

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]

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

 

[Ry]

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]

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

 

[Ioreck]

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.