A few ideas to beef up fighters


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Here are two ideas to make fighters a tad better. Both are based on
fighters being masters of feats.

1. A way to reduce the ability score needed for a feat such as expertise or dodge.

2. This second on needs for fighter to gain grit or a similar ability.
(Giving fighters grit was not my idea) My idea is to allow them spend grit
to use a feat they don't have but they qualify for. This will only last one round. So if they have power attack they could spend N grit to use cleave for one round

Any and all feedback would be nice.

Silver Crusade

a couple of things I can think of to beef up fighters is to remove or lower the level prereqsites on feats that carried over from 3.5
I wold simply reduce the level prerequsites for fighter feats by 1/2
this would only apply to the fighter class.

give fighters a class ability that combines movement and attack that enables fighters to combine feats like vital strike with charge


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, fighters are fine as is. The only thing I would like to see improved is adding perception as a class skill.

But, neither ideas are bad. I would use trip/disarm much more if I didnt need 13 int


1 person marked this as a favorite.

two extra skill per level. That is all I really want. a better will save would be great but not really necesary.


4 skill points lvl, better will save and you're golden really. Revised skill list.


Aroach1188 wrote:
I would use trip/disarm much more if I didnt need 13 int

Lunge.

Trip/disarm at distance.

Also,lore wardens.


Nicos wrote:
Aroach1188 wrote:
I would use trip/disarm much more if I didnt need 13 int

Lunge.

Trip/disarm at distance.

Also,lore wardens.

Meh. Im not to keen on giving up armor proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

- 4 skill points per level
- Give them Acrobatics and Perception as class skills
- Make bravery apply on saves against [charm] and [compulsion] effects

Personally, I'd also give them a good Reflex save progression.

Something that would be very good for many characters, but Fighters more than others is removing the Int pre-requisite from Combat Expertise and the maneuver feats.

In fact, I'd also recomend condensing each Improved/Greater Combat Maneuver feat into a single feat that scales with BAB, like Power Attack.

But most importantly, give them something unique. Something cool to do in combat, besides Full-Attack every round.

Sovereign Court

More skill points and a few more class skills is all I really want. The problem isn't that fighters can't perform in combat - because they totally can! - it's that with their meager skill points they can't do enough out of combat.

I'm fine with Int/etc requirements on feats, I like that you can't dump stats without giving up some options. There should be a trade-off between going all-physical or fighting smart.

If anything, I'd be for giving fighters things like Solo Tactics (the Inquisitor ability) or battle command abilities. Maybe as feats.


I haven't had any problems with my Fighters (as both a Player and a GM) being able to work outside of combat.

In fact I have had my party members complain that the Skill Monkeys are getting mad that the Fighter can do most things just as well if not better than them.

The Fighter is meant more for gearing up for and fighting in combat. In this respect they can easily outshine anyone. They can also devote more Feats to non-combat abilities as well. Especially if you get all combat abilities you require early on in your level progression.

Every other ability I could want for the Fighter I can easily choose to get through an Archetype.


Vorpal Laugh wrote:

Here are two ideas to make fighters a tad better. Both are based on

fighters being masters of feats.

1. A way to reduce the ability score needed for a feat such as expertise or dodge.

Any and all feedback would be nice.

With a 16 point build as a Human Fighter, I had a 16 base Strength, a 14 Dex, and an 11 Con. My Racial +2 went to Strength (well no duh). Since we reached 5th level, I put my extra point in Con to give myself a little extra bit of HP from the previous level Stat Point.

Personally, Dodge for a feat shouldn't be much to acquire, especially if the Fighter has Armor Training, which increases Max Dex Bonus (from the base of 1 from Full Plate, to as high as 6), which means you should focus more stat points on Dexterity to get more out of that increased Max Dex Bonus. (Unfortunately, if you're using a Tower Shield, you're screwed after Rank 1 or 2.)

As far as Combat Expertise is concerned, it's balanced in that characters that spend for intelligence scores as melee are rewarded/compensated for it. The thing is, using the feat also detracts from their bonuses to attack, meaning it's also a double edged sword (pun intended).

I'd allow an Archetype that would be able to take and utilize all Combat feats without the Pre-Reqs with sacrificing either Weapon or Armor Training as a whole, but is something that would take some time and calculating for balancing, which I am lazy at right now.


I never understood why fighters couldn't apply Armor Training to shields... Though I think a fighter archetype does this.

An archetype that used Ranger Combat Style Feats and a special Combat Style can be easily done. if it hasn't been done before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd give them a good will save, takes a lot of mental gumption to do what a fighter does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i actually think fighters are pretty sweet.

if they want more skills, they can increase their int, be human, or pick up feats.

will saves, same deal - theres a feat, they could bump their wisdom some (helps with perception etc too!)


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

I never understood why fighters couldn't apply Armor Training to shields... Though I think a fighter archetype does this.

An archetype that used Ranger Combat Style Feats and a special Combat Style can be easily done. if it hasn't been done before.

I remember there being a thread regarding a Tower Shield Fighter archetype able to increase the MDB and reduce the ACP of the Tower Shield; I'm almost positive there are Fighter archetypes that revolve around using the other shield types, so I am sure there are methods about that. But they are most likely mutually exclusive. (The sad thing is, I remember the thread saying that the Tower Shield proficiency feature is broken and needs to be fixed up.)

What I would really like to see are Stance Feats, and a Fighter Archetype being a Stance Master, allowing them to ignore pre-reqs for their Fighter Bonus Feats.


Blue Star wrote:
I'd give them a good will save, takes a lot of mental gumption to do what a fighter does.

Bravery covers most of that.

@Darksol_the_Painbringer: I thought about stance feats... After a while I started to notice Style feats pretty much cover fighting styles.

This is where I decided a stance system that worked similar to Combat Maneuvers might work. Then I realized it was added complexity and didn't really do anything.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
I'd give them a good will save, takes a lot of mental gumption to do what a fighter does.

Bravery covers most of that.

@Darksol_the_Painbringer: I thought about stance feats... After a while I started to notice Style feats pretty much cover fighting styles.

This is where I decided a stance system that worked similar to Combat Maneuvers might work. Then I realized it was added complexity and didn't really do anything.

The biggest issue with Style Feats is that they are ultimately function like Stances (a swift/free action to activate, is active throughout the whole combat or until character decides to change at the cost of the previous action used). I can apply multiple concepts of Style Feats to weapons and exempt unnecessary requirements (such as removing the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and that the character need one hand free of objects), and get the same effect out of them with a change in flavor.

I mean, if I am a fighter with a weapon drawn, and I cannot Riposte an attack (via the Crane Style line of feats) because I do not have a free hand open (when I can just use my weapon or shield to deflect the attack instead of my hand), it makes no sense to have those requirements other than for balancing issues. The style is pretty dang broken, if I can completely deflect an attack, regardless of type of attack it is or what size of creature does the attack, with an open hand, compared to the Duelist prestige, which takes major minuses (at first) to do a sub-par version of the same thing.


Yeah... the D20 system is horribly unbalanced. When combined with what appears to be a Never-Look-Back design strategy... it creates interesting problems.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighter is fine But if it did get some love
More skills and or class skills (maybe as a class ability choosing how you were trained)
Have bravery cover a wider set of saves


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
I'd give them a good will save, takes a lot of mental gumption to do what a fighter does.

Bravery covers most of that.

@Darksol_the_Painbringer: I thought about stance feats... After a while I started to notice Style feats pretty much cover fighting styles.

This is where I decided a stance system that worked similar to Combat Maneuvers might work. Then I realized it was added complexity and didn't really do anything.

No, it really doesn't. The type of willpower used to overcome fear is the same stuff used to overcome attempts to override your personality, and to overcome nonsense like monsters using magic to seduce you. Besides, even with Bravery, a fighter isn't likely to put much into wisdom, so their will save vs fear will still not be as good as someone who simply has a good will save.


OP: Could you state the perceived problems that these solutions will address?

My experience hasn't shown that the ability score pre-reqs are too hurtful to the fighter. In general, they can use the skill points from an Int 13, or the many bonuses that Dex can confer (especially to ranged combat, AC, initiative). The end result is a system where you can go huge on physical strength but you'll be a lumbering oaf, which is totally fine with me.

What problem does a grit mechanic solve, in your view?

I agree, the fighter could use 2 more skill points and a lot more class skills. Anything that could be considered military in its application, and a few besides. That would be my solution, if I were convinced to take action on this issue.


Nicos wrote:
Aroach1188 wrote:
I would use trip/disarm much more if I didnt need 13 int

Lunge.

Trip/disarm at distance.

Too complex. His fighter doesn't have the int for it. ;)

I like the prereqs where they are. Makes it so you have to have a balanced character in stats to do certain things, rather than having every fighter a moron or whatnot.


bookrat wrote:
I like the prereqs where they are. Makes it so you have to have a balanced character in stats to do certain things, rather than having every fighter a moron or whatnot.

Although hitting hard and nothing fancy is actually quite effective and should be.


If you want a bonus against something seducing you play a Dwarf. A Fighter only needs to be able to get stuck in. This means they avoid the normal Fear a commoner would feel. How does the willpower to charge something like a Great Wyrm even closely relate to avoiding the charms of a Succubus disguised as a normal woman?

I agree with bookrat, prerequisites are fine as is. All of them are easily accessible and they lead to a very balanced character.

I agree the Fighter could do with either more skill choices or more skill points. I would be wary of both because that means a few other classes would want them. Besides it is easy to get bonus class skills. Races add some, traits add some, and if you use a professions system then it really goes a long way.


Very simple: it's a representation of the type of ego required to overcome your instincts, something which magic enchantments tend to try manipulating, if your ego is strong, it let's you ignore (albeit only for a time) the psychological responses your environment should get from you.

Plus, bravery still doesn't make them equal to the classes with a good will save. You will still see the fighter running rather quickly. Why would a soldier run before a priest would? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


The Classes aren't meant to be equal. Standing in the face of Fear is what Fighters are meant to do. Not resist a Succubus. They train physically to be combat ready, to take a blow and continue on. They aren't trained to resist spells.


This wouldn't make the fighter equal to the cleric, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Which they still can't do very well, better than some, sure, but at the end of the day, they are still far more likely to be seen running away than most. That should be part and parcel of what it takes to become a fighter in the first place: the will to finish your mission. Which can be quickly made impossible, far too quickly in all honesty.


Blue Star wrote:
This wouldn't make the fighter equal to the cleric, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Which they still can't do very well, better than some, sure, but at the end of the day, they are still far more likely to be seen running away than most. That should be part and parcel of what it takes to become a fighter in the first place: the will to finish your mission. Which can be quickly made impossible, far too quickly in all honesty.

The Fighters don't have any sort of outside power assisting them with their ability to fight. It's pure skill and equipment. Anything else is from the other members of the party, which they can do the same and then some.

Oh, sure the big bad casters can't exactly wear Full Plate armor, but it's not like they need to worry about armor in the first place when they can replicate its qualities through spells. Oh, they don't have as many feats as mister fighter, but they can cast spells that put feats to absolute shame. Their overall status compared to fighters is quite frankly, superior.

All a caster has to do is win initiative (which isn't hard, since unless a Fighter sets up for it, they don't have to work hard toward it, and even if the Fighter does plan to have high initiative, they won't have nearly as many opportunities as the casters do), and cast a single spell, and the fighter is toast. The rest is just torture after that.

Paladins and Monks get a green card for some of the spells and initiative because chances are the caster's spells won't really work on them, so they must use their other, less powerful spells, which won't do much when they have the capabilities of healing themselves, having major immunities, crazy saves, (Paladins able to cast their own spells while at the same time maintaining the same armor as a Fighter, plus Smite and overcome any means of defense, Monks can just immobilize and render the caster useless while they slowly beat them down to death) what the heck does the Fighter even have as a benefit other than "lolfeats"?


Since when has that been a factor in determining how powerful someone is?

The big bad casters can totally wear full plate, assuming they take the right feats, and wear the right suit. No arcane spell failure if you manage to knock it down to 0%. Arcane armor mastery + Celestial Plate Armor= 0% ASF. Even just using regular mithral full plate gets you a 5% chance.

This largely doesn't sound like you are arguing against my proposition of giving the Fighter a decent will save.


Fighters are meant to be part of a team. After all no trained Soldier goes into battle alone.


Yeah, too bad they are a handicap to the team, because the demon/devil/whatever looks at the group, realizes there's a fighter, and Commands him to begin killing his teammates.


Actually Compulsion effects usually have an easy DC that even a WIS 10 Fighter can pass. It is when you come across things like the DC 30 saves they start to have problems.

& no offense... but if you seriously think that... then you might want to remove Roy Greenhilt as your avatar...


In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Fighters are meant to be part of a team. After all no trained Soldier goes into battle alone.

Since when does having a will save capable of making you useful to the party when fighting an enchanter, as opposed to a liability, make then not apart of a team? If anything the team should welcome the change, especially the party wizard/cleric, as they no longer need to prepare spells to protect them from their own party members (something that should help with team cohesion).

Edit: Ninja


The thing is a Fighter has a weakness. That weakness should be overcome through players working together. Not a rule change.


Nicos wrote:
In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.

Enemies should be trying to kill the wizard because he is more powerful. The only reason enemies choose not to gang up on the wizard is because the DM chose to make the tactically inefficient choice to help the party win.

edit: changed for clarity


Kitsune Knight wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.

Enemies should be trying to kill the wizard because he is more powerful. The only reason enemies choose not to gang up on the wizard is because the DM chose to make the tactically inefficient choice to help the party win.

edit: changed for clarity

If the wizard is not too flashy, and the fighter is hacking things in half, I'd go for the fighter first as a DM. Unless the enemy knows the PC wizard is powerful. Then I'd try to hit him when he doesnt expect it


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The thing is a Fighter has a weakness. That weakness should be overcome through players working together. Not a rule change.

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree as I am not a fan of classes having weaknesses that require other classes to help you play catch-up. Especially, when it is a weakness that can get the rest of the party killed.


Kitsune Knight wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.

Enemies should be trying to kill the wizard because he is more powerful. The only reason enemies choose not to gang up on the wizard is because the DM chose to make the tactically inefficient choice to help the party win.

edit: changed for clarity

Either that or there are class features/conditions that prevent them from doing so. Of course, DM's want to make things interesting for the group, and need to give Fighters something to enjoy.

They're not going to lay a finger on a Wizard/caster with the proper protocols set. A fighter is a sitting duck because they have zero; yes, I count (actually, lackthereof) absolutely zero defenses for the Fighter against the likes of a Wizard.

Paladins and monks both have large scale immunities, and ridiculous saves, so Wizard has to burn them down manually, which isn't exactly efficient come the endgame. Rogues can stealth and debilitate, while having great resistance against their damage spells, but they might as well be labeled as the rest of the trash.

Clerics have methods to deter the offense of a Wizard, but by the time all of their protocol abilities are placed, the Wizard will have them dead. The Oracle and Witch aren't in much of a different boat than the Wizard.

The only way a Sorcerer will have a chance at the Wizard is with a couple lucky rolls (or junky ones from the Wizard). They're dead just the same otherwise.


Aroach1188 wrote:
Kitsune Knight wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.

Enemies should be trying to kill the wizard because he is more powerful. The only reason enemies choose not to gang up on the wizard is because the DM chose to make the tactically inefficient choice to help the party win.

edit: changed for clarity

If the wizard is not too flashy, and the fighter is hacking things in half, I'd go for the fighter first as a DM. Unless the enemy knows the PC wizard is powerful. Then I'd try to hit him when he doesnt expect it

Spells in general tend to be flashy unless Stilled, Silenced, and/or using Eschew Materials and even then that is going to be rather difficult to pull off. Personally, if I where a hapless enemy I would go after the guy who looks like he is warping reality, especially if I just watched him do it, and leave the biggest guy on our side to tie up the fighter.


Kitsune Knight wrote:
Aroach1188 wrote:
Kitsune Knight wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.

Enemies should be trying to kill the wizard because he is more powerful. The only reason enemies choose not to gang up on the wizard is because the DM chose to make the tactically inefficient choice to help the party win.

edit: changed for clarity

If the wizard is not too flashy, and the fighter is hacking things in half, I'd go for the fighter first as a DM. Unless the enemy knows the PC wizard is powerful. Then I'd try to hit him when he doesnt expect it
Spells in general tend to be flashy unless Stilled, Silenced, and/or using Eschew Materials and even then that is going to be rather difficult to pull off. Personally, if I where a hapless enemy I would go after the guy who looks like he is warping reality, especially if I just watched him do it, and leave the biggest guy on our side to tie up the fighter.

I have also instituted the "swirling magical rune circle" rule so that the rules on silent, stilled, eschewed spells (which you can still notice by RAW) are consistent. And it matches the PF art style.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Actually Compulsion effects usually have an easy DC that even a WIS 10 Fighter can pass. It is when you come across things like the DC 30 saves they start to have problems.

& no offense... but if you seriously think that... then you might want to remove Roy Greenhilt as your avatar...

Not anywhere near as much as you think. An average wizard will have an 18 Int, meaning his lowest spell will be DC 14, which in turn means that the fighter will fail it 70% of the time. That's really bad. A 70%+ Chance of suddenly turning on your team or losing outright (Sleep) is a very bad thing.

There's a reason Roy Greenhilt has a high wisdom score. I mean aside from the fact that he probably rolled amazing for his stats.

Teamwork does not overcome the fighter's weakness, it takes magic to do that, magic his group doesn't always have available. Also: what's the paladin's weakness? Not having access to 9th level spells, isn't much in the way of a weakness. HP:high. BAB:Full. Saves:Highest in the game. Can he heal:Yes. Dispel Magic:Yes. Fly:Yes. Melee:Yes. Range:Yes. AC:2nd to only the fighter, until he dips into his magic. Oh, for all his power he's got an easily-followed code of conduct:don't be a dick.


Blue Star wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Actually Compulsion effects usually have an easy DC that even a WIS 10 Fighter can pass. It is when you come across things like the DC 30 saves they start to have problems.

& no offense... but if you seriously think that... then you might want to remove Roy Greenhilt as your avatar...

Not anywhere near as much as you think. An average wizard will have an 18 Int, meaning his lowest spell will be DC 14, which in turn means that the fighter will fail it 70% of the time. That's really bad. A 70%+ Chance of suddenly turning on your team or losing outright (Sleep) is a very bad thing.

There's a reason Roy Greenhilt has a high wisdom score. I mean aside from the fact that he probably rolled amazing for his stats.

Teamwork does not overcome the fighter's weakness, it takes magic to do that, magic his group doesn't always have available. Also: what's the paladin's weakness? Not having access to 9th level spells, isn't much in the way of a weakness. HP:high. BAB:Full. Saves:Highest in the game. Can he heal:Yes. Dispel Magic:Yes. Fly:Yes. Melee:Yes. Range:Yes. AC:2nd to only the fighter, until he dips into his magic. Oh, for all his power he's got an easily-followed code of conduct:don't be a dick.

When did this become about the Pally? I was certain we were talking about the fighter


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kitsune Knight wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the caster Vs Fighter discusion it seems to always sumed fighter are weaker but somehow the enemies try to kill the fighter first. I mean if the wizard is stronger just kill the wizard first.

Enemies should be trying to kill the wizard because he is more powerful. The only reason enemies choose not to gang up on the wizard is because the DM chose to make the tactically inefficient choice to help the party win.

edit: changed for clarity

Either that or there are class features/conditions that prevent them from doing so. Of course, DM's want to make things interesting for the group, and need to give Fighters something to enjoy.

They're not going to lay a finger on a Wizard/caster with the proper protocols set. A fighter is a sitting duck because they have zero; yes, I count (actually, lackthereof) absolutely zero defenses for the Fighter against the likes of a Wizard.

Paladins and monks both have large scale immunities, and ridiculous saves, so Wizard has to burn them down manually, which isn't exactly efficient come the endgame. Rogues can stealth and debilitate, while having great resistance against their damage spells, but they might as well be labeled as the rest of the trash.

Clerics have methods to deter the offense of a Wizard, but by the time all of their protocol abilities are placed, the Wizard will have them dead. The Oracle and Witch aren't in much of a different boat than the Wizard.

The only way a Sorcerer will have a chance at the Wizard is with a couple lucky rolls (or junky ones from the Wizard). They're dead just the same otherwise.

Nothing like a good ol' monk to ruin every casters day.

Wizard: Fighter? Dominate person, look, I have a new pet
Rogue? Have you met this nice little Phantasm here?
Monk? FFFUUUUUUUU Grapple


Aroach1188 wrote:
When did this become about the Pally? I was certain we were talking about the fighter

It is, but he made a blanket statement he shouldn't have made.


I just thought of the Titan Mauler PrC from 3.5... specifically the Dwarf Monk/Titan Mauler that appeared in the last 3.5 game I played...

My Wizard was screwed...


Sorry for the lack of response. I worked this weekend from morning to night. These idea, were because I feel that fighter's could use
some love.
For the first idea, I was thinking of just a couple points, so
something with an int of 8 still couldn't get expertise. This was just a quick idea also. Maybe it could work as a feat, with limit on stacking ?

To answer what I think a grit system, could do, is add some excitement.
I was leaning towards fighter's having less grit than gunslingers, or having powers that cost 3 or even more grit to use. This leads to a connect third idea. Awesome fighter only feats, and the most powerful effects can cost grit to use. I am thinking of not only awesome attacks but also ways to affect the battlefield. One of main weakness of fighters at higher levels is not just a lack of "power" but a lack of cool and unique things to do. One of counter arguments given to how spell casters often dominate high level play is that fighters can do their thing forever unlike with spells. A grit like system gives fighters new powers but limits their uses. A different system can be devised, but grit is already part of the game.

People have brought up other good points. I have no problem with
Fighter getting more class skills and more skill points. I can see both the for and against the increased will saves. Also shouldn't some fighter's be nimble and good at dodging fireballs. I don't think they should have all good saves. My solution will be a fighter only feat that gives a bonus to either will or reflex saves equal to fighter level/ 3 minimal 1. This will give a level 20 fighter a +12 to one non
fort save. There could also be another feat that gives fighter
level/ 6 to the other save. These numbers are of course just starting points for testing and discussion

Sorry for the long post. My pathfinder group is on a three week break,
so I have plenty of time to metagame.


Lemmy wrote:

- 4 skill points per level

- Give them Acrobatics and Perception as class skills
- Make bravery apply on saves against [charm] and [compulsion] effects

Personally, I'd also give them a good Reflex save progression.

Something that would be very good for many characters, but Fighters more than others is removing the Int pre-requisite from Combat Expertise and the maneuver feats.

In fact, I'd also recomend condensing each Improved/Greater Combat Maneuver feat into a single feat that scales with BAB, like Power Attack.

But most importantly, give them something unique. Something cool to do in combat, besides Full-Attack every round.

+ 0.5

- More class skills. Not necessarily Acrobatics and Perception, but sense motive and some optional skill.
- 4 skill points per level
- Make bravery apply on saves against [charm] and [compulsion] and Fear effects.

Good will saves
remove Combat Expertise as a pre-requisite for maneuver feats.
Improved/Greater Combat Maneuver feat into a single feat that scales with BAB, like Power Attack.
"most importantly, give them something unique. Something cool to do in combat" and out of combat"
Give them pounce X times per day.
Give them (and most classes) a bonus to shield AC if they wear a shield.
Give them something like Smite light.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
bookrat wrote:
I like the prereqs where they are. Makes it so you have to have a balanced character in stats to do certain things, rather than having every fighter a moron or whatnot.
Although hitting hard and nothing fancy is actually quite effective and should be.

At higher levels Paladins, barbarians and rangers do it better and they got other things going for them as well.

The fighter we have isn't very good at anything but murder, and even then his skillset is pretty limited." as A Man In Black put it.

There is more to a class than death and hit points. Saves and "variety of non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks" or a lack of that variety is a factor, etc.


If Fighter had the abilities of the Tactician and Dervish Dawnflower archetypes, they would be a lot more interesting to play. Unfortunally, they can't even combine those archetypes...

I think low will save is a classic weakness and should be kept, but they shouldn't make Fighters completely helpless against magic. Bravery applying to fear, charm and compulsion effects and (maybe) scaling a little faster should suffice.

Fluff-wise Good reflex simply make sense. A character who depends only on his own skill has no reason to have bad reflexes. Barbarians simply take it and survive, with tons of HP, DR and coll supernatural stuff. Paladins can count on the blessing of their gods. A fighter can only rely on himself. If his abilities are not enough, there is no divine hand or supernatural force to help him. He must have nice reflexes in order to survive!

Increased mobility should be given to all martial/skill-monkey classes, not just fighters. Why in Iomedae's name can a 1st level Wizard move 30ft and rewrite reality but a 20th-level Fighter can't move 10ft and swing his sword twice?

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / A few ideas to beef up fighters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.