Kill the fighter

[Savage Wombat]

3e multiclassing was generally great for power-builders and casters, and sucked for everyone else.

If that is what you think, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Most everyone I know thinks that multiclassing in 3E is great for non-casters, who aren't penalized in casting ability, and sucks for casters who lose effectiveness.

 

[BobTheNob]

If that is what you think, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Most everyone I know thinks that multiclassing in 3E is great for non-casters, who aren't penalized in casting ability, and sucks for casters who lose effectiveness.

Caster is where 3e multiclassing fell over.

That said, a friend of mine used to play this MMO version of NWN2, and man you should have seen the powerbuilds in that. Just rediculous. It was a game that required you to powerbuild (not my cuppa tea) OR DIE, and just about all the powerbuilds had a couple of caster levels to just to get those handy little "buff" spells. It was freakish to look at though...

 

[Hussar]

If that is what you think, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Most everyone I know thinks that multiclassing in 3E is great for non-casters, who aren't penalized in casting ability, and sucks for casters who lose effectiveness.

Yeah, I was going to say. Other than a couple level dip, multiclassing for casters was a very bad idea.

And, really, it wasn't so much that multiclassing was for powergamers, it was more multiclassing plus prestige classes that made for the problem. You dip into a class for a level or two because almost all classes are front end loaded.

Spread that out, and dump prestige classes, or at least don't front end load prestige classes, and you resolve a lot of the powergaming issues.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Here is a good question for Next: Why should we keep the Fighter class?

It sounds radical on the face of it, but really, it is the logical thing to do.

Let's look at all the Fighter-like classes we already have. Barbarians: they fight by raging and taking inhuman amounts of damage. Paladins: they fight by marshaling their innate virtue and holy power to smite bad guys. Rangers: they fight using their unique combat styles, drawing on their wilderness skills. Monk: they fight using their fists, their ki, and their supernatural self-perfection.

But they aren't the only Fighter-like classes. Rogues: they fight by sneaking around behind the enemy and stabbing them where it hurts most. Wizards: they fight with a wide variety of spells drawn from their knowledge of arcana. Clerics: they fight with a mix of martial skill and divinely-granted magics. Druids: they fight using the power of nature and summoned creatures. Bards: they fight by singing and annoying hostile audiences to death. (Well, not really.)

When it comes down to it, every single class is a Fighter of some flavor or another.

So here is my suggestion: Remove the generic version of the Fighter, and in its place adopt a few more Fighter-like martial classes to fill the niches that the generic Fighter could fill better than the other Fighter-like classes could. A class that relies on heavy armor and heavy shields, or one that fights on horseback like a Cavalier, etc.

Instead, how bout we keep the fighter as one who primarily fights?

In a roleplaying game of exploration, character interaction, and fighting all classes do not need to be ones that primarily fight.

 

[Hussar]

Instead, how bout we keep the fighter as one who primarily fights?

In a roleplaying game of exploration, character interaction, and fighting all classes do not need to be ones that primarily fight.

True. But then again, why have a class that only really engages 30% of the game?

I'd prefer all classes can engage the whole game, maybe not perfectly equally, but, at least in the same ballpark.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Multiclassing for casters wasn't broken in 3E. It performed exactly as you would expect. You take a caster, mix with some noncaster, and the power level of the end result is somewhere in between. Closer to the "caster power level" if noncaster levels are minimal, closer to "noncaster power level" if he has mostly noncaster levels. The end results are completely logical. The problem was the gigantic gap in power between casters and noncasters making the tremendous loss of power from even 1 lost CL causing the multiclassing system to seem out of whack. It really wasn't, it was an accurate execution of 3E's class balance, or lack thereof.

 

[ExploderWizard]

True. But then again, why have a class that only really engages 30% of the game?

I'd prefer all classes can engage the whole game, maybe not perfectly equally, but, at least in the same ballpark.

Combat isn't the only thing a fighter can do but it will be what the class is best at.

The attitude of " If I'm not the best at X then why bother trying it at all" is what needs to die in a fire.

If all classes engage in all facets of the game more or less equally then really you only have one class: adventurer, the fighting exploring,socializing machine. At least characters would have different names to tell them apart.

 

[Sunseeker]

If all classes engage in all facets of the game more or less equally then really you only have one class: adventurer, the fighting exploring,socializing machine. At least characters would have different names to tell them apart.

Equally, but in different aspects. The fighter is perfect to intimidate the bandit guards into just walking away for the night. Just as the bard is perfect to diplomicize the king into giving them more lutes after an adventure. The rogue can help you find and disable traps, just as the wizard can find and disable magic stuff.

All classes ARE adventurers, and there are so many facets of combat, exploration and socialization, that while a class need not do everything, it certainly can participate in many aspects with no problems.

 

[ExploderWizard]

All classes ARE adventurers, and there are so many facets of combat, exploration and socialization, that while a class need not do everything, it certainly can participate in many aspects with no problems.

I agree as long as "participate" does not have to mean 'with the same numbers/bonuses as everyone else'.

 

[Schmoe]

Equally, but in different aspects. The fighter is perfect to intimidate the bandit guards into just walking away for the night.

Here's how the fighter is perfect for intimidating the guards:


Guard: "Halt! Show us your papers."

Fighter: <looks mean>

Rogue: "You see that guy there with the big sword? Friendly guy, once you get to know him. He's only killed like three or four people without provocation, and he only dismembered one of them! Anyway, his favorite dog died last week, and his papers have his dog's name on them. He's been having a rough time, and I'd hate to bring up a painful memory. Maybe you could let us past without showing papers just this once?"