What does the fighter need...

[heirodule]

I like the idea of giving them Leadership.

Maybe making them more like marshalls, or with the capacity to act like marshalls.

 

[occam]

I voted "Some sort of boost to combat ability", but what I really meant is better feats. I like the design of the fighter as is; I like that it's so simple, and is basically just a pure expression of the feat system. I just think fighters need more effective feat chains available to them. The PHB2 was a good step in the right direction.

However, taking a step further back, the misgivings I've had about feats from the very beginning of 3e have become more prominent lately, and they feed into my thoughts about the fighter. I feel like feats have become too numerous, and their effects are so arbitrary, they they're now adding more complexity to the game than they're worth. Maybe. I still haven't fully convinced myself, but I don't like the way it's going, especially with the development of tactical feats, ToB maneuvers (which I love on their own), skill tricks, etc. It's getting to be a bit much. And especially considering that you'll never even see most feats in use, I wonder if the overhead of having them all there is worth it.

 

[Klaus]

Hmm... What about giving a Fighter access to commander auras, like those in Heroes of Battle?

 

[Henry]

Well, to be fair, thanks to Fighters having loads of feats, they can take advantage of Combat Maneuvers just like Warblades/Swordsages/Crusaders; the only problem is that they can only take THREE of them. Personally, I'd say that it's not the fighters that have too little, but the martial adepts who have to much, but that's just personal opinion, and one that's been argued to death in other threads.

I'd give fighters a feat every level whenever WotC decides (4th edition or whenever) to break out the wizard spells into 20 levels, instead of just 9 levels, like Monte Cook suggested years ago. When the wizards and clerics have a new level of spell with each level of class, that's when fighters should get a feat every level.

 

[green slime]

Well, to be fair, thanks to Fighters having loads of feats, they can take advantage of Combat Maneuvers just like Warblades/Swordsages/Crusaders; the only problem is that they can only take THREE of them. Personally, I'd say that it's not the fighters that have too little, but the martial adepts who have to much, but that's just personal opinion, and one that's been argued to death in other threads.

I'd give fighters a feat every level whenever WotC decides (4th edition or whenever) to break out the wizard spells into 20 levels, instead of just 9 levels, like Monte Cook suggested years ago. When the wizards and clerics have a new level of spell with each level of class, that's when fighters should get a feat every level.

Do we really need to keep track of twenty levels of wizard spells? I actually prefer the present system.

 

[awayfarer]

There are lots of options that play to that character type amongst the various base classes, you don't NEED the Fighter class to play a loner or a vagabond.

I'm not saying that the fighter is necessary to that type of character. I was giving an example of a PC type that I like to play and how it doesn't mesh well with the leadership abilities.

Personally, I'd say that it's not the fighters that have too little, but the martial adepts who have to much, but that's just personal opinion, and one that's been argued to death in other threads.

I'm actually inclined to agree with this.


Overall, I'm leaning towards just giving the fighter the weapon focus/specialization feats free at the first level they become available along with weapon mastery and improved crit. I suppose this is similar to the suggestion of giving them more feats, but I figure this is just giving whats due seeing as these are (technically+mostly) fighter-only anyhow.

Think I'll tack on knowledge:history, balance and tumble and call it a day.

 

[Henry]

Do we really need to keep track of twenty levels of wizard spells? I actually prefer the present system.

Monte made a convincing argument of this, actually; he noted how many spells tend to "fall in the cracks" in a given spell level. Some, like Magic missile, are really a little too powerful for first spell level, but not quite big enough for second level. Others can be just the opposite -- too weak to really be where they are, but they'd stand out like magic missile if you placed them a level below. 20 full spell levels (one for each character level) would allow for a finer gradation of power adjustment, and would also eliminate level 17 from being the "top-out level" for spellcaster power. It would also mean a caster could be given LESS spell power in a given level, rather than a whole two levels' worth of power at once.

I don't mind with the present system (I've lived with it for 25 years, after all! ) but I can definitely see his point.

 

[green slime]

My fear with a system like that is that I'd completely lose track of spell granularity, something gained from rather too many years as a DM in this game.

Most spells in the PHB, I can set their spell level. Now if they got reshuffled once again (like after 2e, and then 3e), except over a larger variety of numbers, I don't think I could cope. Seriously.

 

[Agamemnon]

My vote was for "Combat boost", but what I wanted to vote was "To be put out of its misery."

Fighters have been a lame duck for years, and it's unrealistic to assume WOTC will make them less so in the near future.

 

[Slaved]

Monte made a convincing argument of this, actually; he noted how many spells tend to "fall in the cracks" in a given spell level. Some, like Magic missile, are really a little too powerful for first spell level, but not quite big enough for second level. Others can be just the opposite -- too weak to really be where they are, but they'd stand out like magic missile if you placed them a level below. 20 full spell levels (one for each character level) would allow for a finer gradation of power adjustment, and would also eliminate level 17 from being the "top-out level" for spellcaster power. It would also mean a caster could be given LESS spell power in a given level, rather than a whole two levels' worth of power at once.

I don't mind with the present system (I've lived with it for 25 years, after all! ) but I can definitely see his point.

The psionics system is a little bit of both really. You have the full levels while many powers can be augmented by 1 power point increments and so hit intermediate levels.

Going even deeper with more options and a lot more thought into going up and down the chain there is a lot of potential there waiting to be used.