Fighter's shouldn't have to suck

[Brother MacLaren]

Definitely, but if the casters want to rest you kinda have to rest with them. You'll get killed if you go on without them. You could maybe talk to the DM about some surprise attacks on camp, or random encounters during spell preparation, but be careful what you wish for.

Another situation might be timed adventures -- where, for one reason or another, the party doesn't have the luxury of resting. They have to get to the widget before the bad guys do. That means the casters *can't* throw a spell every round of every combat, they may have to conserve their resources for when they're needed. The fighter, of course, can swing his axe all day long.

 

[Slaved]

I know that you said that you liked playing the fighter and also that the book of nine swords was already mentioned but.........

Perhaps a class from that would fit more into what you are wanting to do?

As an example, the Crusader gets abilities that allow him to block attacks going to allies, he has some pretty nice moves for being useful in combat, he can heal somewhat if you want to go for that, and there is a stance that you would not be too far away from that would grant you a massive bonus to resist things like being tripped, bull rushed, disarmed, and the like along with giving you damage reduction 2/- with the drawback that if you move more than 5' in a round the stance goes away.

That character build might get you most or all of what you are looking for, although it means not going into dwarven defender until after level 10 or so I think, or never if you want to keep going with more levels of crusader.

It might be something to think about if it is an option, even though it isnt actually a fighter. You could still take levels of fighter in that build as well, it would just delay your getting the stance I mentioned above until later or you could take those levels after you get that stance.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

The Druid is shaping into a Fleshraker dinosaur which is a medium creature.

Make sure he's not still adding bonuses from his equipment. I don't have any books here, but from what I got on google, the Fleshraker dinosaur has 22 AC, not 31.

If he's polymorphing, the Illusionist has to be level 7 or higher.

The main thing is the Illusionist/Druid should have to be able to justify why they're familiar with the creatures they're changing into. If you can switch into any kind of monster based on the situation, those abilities start encroaching on being broken.

Realistically, the most useful thing you could do is probably to take some time at the start of your next session and talk about all of this with both the DM and the other players. They won't be happy if the DM has to take some power away from them (even if they shouldn't have that power), but right now you're not enjoying yourself either. Hopefully you can find some sort of compromise, even if it just means the casters spend a little time buffing you instead of just buffing themselves.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

We're now going to make you a Ftr 4 / Knight 4 with

I'll admit I'm biased against the knight. I just don't see the need for stripping that archetype away from the things the Fighter class is meant to represent.

The FIRST THREE WORDS of the description of the Fighter class in the 3.5 PHB: "The questing knight"

Can anybody explain why it was NECESSARY to take that away from the Fighter?

Social status? Require all fighters to be multiclass Aristocrat/Ftr if they want to call themselves "knights" (it's actually a pretty good class).
Mounted combat? Cavalier PrC.
This "knight's challenge" or whatever it is? That's a lot like the Goad feat.
Code of conduct? Laughable for many historical knights, but if you want that feel, Paladins and Kensai already existed.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Make sure he's not still adding bonuses from his equipment. I don't have any books here, but from what I got on google, the Fleshraker dinosaur has 22 AC, not 31.

Mage Armor is +4 AC, and Barkskin at this level is +3 AC. Both last a fairly long time. Not too hard to find another +2 or so for the duration of combat (Prot. Evil, Shield of Faith, Cat's Grace, or even just fighting defensively).

 

[jontherev]

Fighters do not suck.

Your feats are fine, except Toughness...at least take Improved Toughness if you want more hit points (oddly enough, it doesn't have Toughness as a prereq. and gives 1/level).

Iron Will and Endurance are AWESOME feats that every fighter should have. Why? Because they are both prerequisites for Indomitable Soul in the PHB2, and Endurance is also a prereq. for Steadfast Determination, which has already been mentioned.

Fighters who neglect defensive feats are asking to be charmed and turned on the party. You should be able to spare at least a few of your 12 feat choices (for a 20th level fighter) for defensive feats.

I played a dwarven fighter type from 1st all the way to 22nd (ending as a barbarian1/fighter18/exoticweaponmaster1/cleric2...got bored and took cleric after going epic). He was anything but ineffective. He outdamaged the paladin most of the time, and the difference grew as we went up in levels. I had better saves than the paladin too, due to some feat choices.

If you're just using core feats in the PHB, then you're probably right. You need the complete warrior, complete adventurer & PHB2 to even the playing field.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

I'll admit I'm biased against the knight. I just don't see the need for stripping that archetype away from the things the Fighter class is meant to represent.

I'm just glad you didn't go "it sounds like an MMORPG, wah!"

I'm with you, I actually don't think Fighter is that poorly off. The disparity is caused more, IMHO, by the way higher level campaigns are structured, often ending in a massive fight against one supremely powerful BBEG. Casters hit higher highs than a Fighter ever will, but they also have lower lows. A wizard who is out of spells for the day is about as useful as a concubine in a monastery.

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

The fleshraker dinosaur is a gamebreaker. It's brutal enough to fight in a one-off encounter, much less in the person of a wildshaped druid with 14 active spells.

 

[Goreg Skullcrusher]

It's interesting cause you're experiencing more or less the dilemma our group faced some time ago. We felt that it wasn't so much Fighters (and melee in general) that sucked, but spellcasters were overpowered (a glass half-full/half-empty perception, which is fair). Ultimately our resolution was to just eliminate spellcasting altogether (except healing), as we were fed up with the lackluster performance of the Fighter-types, of which the entire group thought was too iconic to dismiss and do away with.

Strangely enough, the Fighter class has turned out to be one of the most powerful classes now as a result of the change. We've got three DM's in the group, and each one follows the no-spellcasting mechanic and the games have improved vastly for us since.

Alternatively, you can take a look at the Tome of Battle. It does the reverse of what we did by simply ramping up the power of melee classes to match that of full spellcasters.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And don't be afraid to drop the shield and 2-hand your axe when damage output is more important than defense (such as when facing a spellcaster or other low-AC opponent who isn't likely to miss you). Don't forget you can loosen the shield as you move up to an opponent, drop it as a free action, and still take your attack.

Depending on what sort of action the DM rules "Put second hand on weapon" to be.

I'd call it a free action, but in a recent thread, several people declared that since you're drawing the weapon from your right hand into both hands (!?), they'd require a Draw a Weapon action. Since you've loosened your shield while moving, a separate Draw a Weapon action would be another move action (absent Quick Draw).

-Hyp.