how do you make a Fighter be not-boring?

[pawsplay]

To me, fighters are interesting. They have a zillion feats, which means you can pick something and do it well, or branch out and become very versatile. While they aren't much in the logistics department, in combat they are quite formidable. I have never included Warblades in my game, not because of their power (which is actually very similar to a fighter anywa) but because I don't like the flavor. Too much wahoo. Despite all the moaning and groaning, most analyses on the CO board at wizards came to the conclusion fighters do more damage than barbarians over the long haul and can often hold their own against warblades.

Fighters mostly lack: exotic defenses, transportation spells, buffs. If you are willing to rely on your friends, that is not a problem. In their own role, fighters are as effective as members of most classes.

There are fewer exploitive fighter builds. Feature, not a bug?

 

[EroGaki]

The thing about fighters that bugs me, more than any other D&D class, is that they suck at defense. They have a billion and one feats designed to hurt people or gain an advantage in combat, but only a handful help prevent the fighter from getting hurt. Fighters, in my mind, should be equally skilled in defense; barbarians are brutes who absorb damage, rangers are designed to work at a distance, and paladins have all sorts of divine advantages. All the fighter has is it skill, and that isn't doing the job in the defense area.

IMHO, fighters would be more interesting if they could successfully fulfill different archtypes; 9 out of 10 fighters are high strength, plate mail wearing brutes. Try designing a lightly armored, dex based fencer without multiclassing or entering a prestige class, and see how he compares to the standard fighter. The class should have been designed with many different styles of combat in mind.

Lastly, I've noticed that fighters seem uninteresting because in most D&D campaigns, they are the most common class. Warriors, men-at-arms, mercenaries, and all the rest run around in armor and try to kill things with swords. Most of them cannot rage, don't have favored enemies or the ability to lay on hands. They are, for all intents and purposes, fighters. Even if they are only using the warrior npc class, there is little to distinguish them from the actual fighters, who are supposed to be elite.

The sad thing is that warrior-types are everywhere, and the fighter, lacking any special abilities, blend in perfectly.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Fighters do fine with defense. The only trick is the ever-present issue of relying on magic. I find generally, feats are for offense primarily and magic items for defense. Armor and shield enhancements cost half what weapon ones do. I'd rather have +2 AC than +1 hit/damage at any given level, and since most forms of found treasure and single item price caps for towns are gp-value based, you can also typically find and buy magical armor much easier than weapons. Add in that with AC you can diversfy your stock in all the different bonus types (inherent, luck, delfection, natural...) so that once upgrading your armor or shield becomes really expensive, you stil have a cheaper +1 AC option and...yeah.

Feats, on the other hand, are as you say. The few defensive ones tend to be awful, while as all the "best" fighter-oriented feats involve offense. I just assumed due to the widespread nature of it, this dichotomy was intentional.