I have seen many threads (and even more posts) about how people think that the Fighter class is so lame. I have seen about an equal number that also tell us how lame the Rogue class is. Added to that, I have seen several people discussing Gestalt characters.
Would it perhaps be better if there were a gestalt class of the Fighter and Rogue classes? You could call it the Rogue Warrior, and allow archetypes of Fighters and/or Rogues. You could still play the character with specialization towards your preferences but it would open up many more options to the character. The Rogue Warrior would be a nasty flanker indeed.
|
I actually kicked the idea of this around with some friends, although there were a few balance issues.
Most of which were getting Weapon Training/Feats and Sneak Attack/Rogue Talents. While I'll admit most RTs suck, the ability of this class to be a buzzsaw would be pretty brutal. Striking a balance in which class features they got would be key to make sure this worked.
But the basic chassis of a full BAB character with 8+ skill points and armor/weapon proficiencies seems like a solid one. I wouldn't mind discussing progression of abilities to keep this character from just mowing through any combat where he could sneak attack (which by itself isn't great, but with everything the Fighter gives could be terrifying) while still keeping some of the more flavorful abilities of the Rogue.
An idea is to remove the Bravery from the Fighter leveling and Sneak Attack from the Rogue leveling. Make them into feats that are part of the eligible free list.
Drop Sneak Attack and Rogue Talents, they're flat worse than Weapon Training and Feats anyway.
That leave you with d10 HD, full BaB, 8+Int skills, 2 good saves, a better skill list, and a smattering of other semi-useful abilities.
Puts him on par with the Ranger, at least. More skills and better "always on" combat ability, but without the extra body on the field the Ranger can provide, prerequisiteless Feats, spells, and situational boosts to efectiveness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just run a full Gestalt. Doesn't matter what you do since people on these forums seem to feel that anything without spells is under-powered.
If you don't feel that way, then there is no point in mixing the two classes at all.
|
|
Drop Sneak Attack and Rogue Talents, they're flat worse than Weapon Training and Feats anyway.
That leave you with d10 HD, full BaB, 8+Int skills, 2 good saves, a better skill list, and a smattering of other semi-useful abilities.
Puts him on par with the Ranger, at least. More skills and better "always on" combat ability, but without the extra body on the field the Ranger can provide, prerequisiteless Feats, spells, and situational boosts to efectiveness.
I like this except that I would give players the option to pick a feat or rogue talent at each applicable level. I'll admit that sneak attack is more trouble than it's worth, but there are some rogue talents out there that are worth taking, especially the advanced ones.
I'd rather give the option to the player, even if they never exercise it to allow them to make something less optimal.
I thought about this some more. I think that perhaps just make Sneak Attack into a Fighter feat and keep the rest. Many archetypes play around with other class features, such as Bravery and Trap Finding.
Sure the class is a bit powerful, but it is not a spellcaster nor does it have ki. But now it also seems to be a class that can do something, even at higher levels. I would then relegate Fighter and Rogue to NPC classes, and have this available as a core class.
After this class is added it could also have archetypes to be used for Cavalier, Samurai, and/or Ninja if you so felt the desire. Those classes basically are archetypes as it is.
Gestalt anything is going to have some oomph to it. Letting fighter-rogue gestalt in a non gestalt game will have the balance issues as already noted.
Now, I'm about to suggest something insane, and I hope I don't blow your mind too hard:
In a non gestalt game, a well built multiclass fighter-rogue is very impressive. They can hit pretty well, take damage, and contribute in a large variety of ways both non-combat and combat-wise. While of course they may not develop the pure brutal damage of a fighter or full utility of a rogue, they combine extremely well.
I know none of the cool kids multiclass, but if what you want to do is build a heavily focused melee character with a rogue's utility, multiclass is the way to go in a normal game, IMO.
@Seeley: No, it's not a spellcaster, but you don't want to overpower it as compared to other MARTIAL classes.
A Fighter with Weapon Training and full BaB AND Sneak Attack would blow any other martial out of the water. The main thing that makes Sneak Attack suck is the low to-hit and normal damage of it (There was a thread a while back about doubling Sneak Attack dice so you get +1d6 every level. A Barbarian still matches or exceeds it on average, in both to-hit and damage.).
But with both a higher to-hit, and high static damage ON TOP OF that, along with the high skills, makes Rangers cry and Barbarians...well they've still got better saves and Pounce. Barbarians are the awesomeness all martials should aspire to.
@DeathQuaker: The problem I find with this is that it kinda proves the point, that neither are really that stellar on their own. And TBH, that just screams "Why don't you go Ranger instead?" to me, since you'd be getting roughly equivalent skill points and wouldn't be dropping your BaB by a few points doing it.
@Rynjin: I can see the "Rogue Warrior" as above being a good alternative to the spell-less Ranger.
@LazarX: You are probably right. I was trying to come up with a possible "fix" for those that do feel that the two classes suck. Part of the problem is that they seem to require having an archetype to be a decent class; the base class sucks. I personally feel that the fighters can get some cool items that make them still feel cool.
I saw someone on another forum once note, you could "gestalt" Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Cavalier all into one class with all of the class features and best BAB, save, HD, and skill progressions among the classes (ie, d12 HD, full BAB, 8 + int skill points, and all good saves)...
And still be noticeably weaker than a primary spellcaster. Well, you'll certainly be able to do a lot of damage and have skills, and save against things. But the caster will be able to fly, teleport around the world, mind control people into being his servants, go invisible, bring the dead back to life, and/or create things from literally nothing... All while still being able to end fights about as fast as you via save or die/suck/lose spells.
|
|
That would assume that I agreed with either of those folks. Quite frankly I think the problems with those classes are more with the specific players than the classes themselves. A lot of the confusion also rests with the fact that not everyone wants the same thing, or can't articulate beyond a vague "I want this" as to why the class is so "lame". I've seen amazing rogues and monks, I've also seen extremely awful "Tier 1" class players as well.
You want a more knowledgeable Fighter who might know somethings? Take a halfway decent Int score and go Lore Warden. There are so many ways to customize both classes via feats, talents, and archetypes, that I can't keep track without a scoreboard.
The problem with all those things is that even all together, they don't make a character who can participate in a lot of situations.
Let's take Lore Warden: Even assuming you have a decent Int score (at the expense of your other, more vital stats), Lore Warden only gives Int based skills. You really have no synergy with Int aside from Combat Expertise (or maybe Kirin Style if you're obsessive about making it matter), and with a 14 Int and Human, you're at 7 skill points per level. We could take a Ranger who's also human and has 10 Int and STILL have 7 skill points per level. But the Ranger has Medium Armor Prof still, and a more diverse skill list. There shouldn't be this much of a gap between two classes that for the most part have the same design goal.
It's taking away the fighter's "main niche" to be lightly armored, so it's a matter of feats vs. spells, and I hate to be the guy to say this, but spells always win. Hell, the Ranger even gets about half as many bonus feats (that they don't have to meet the prerequisites) a load of flavorful abilities, an animal companion, and evasion. The Lore Warden is a Ranger with no magic, and the worst thing about 3.X is that you need magic to compete. The best monk archetype is the one that gives you more spell like abilities (find me a monk who knows about it and DOESN'T have it), which says a lot about the value of them.
While this isn't giving it magic (unless you take the rogue talent Minor/Major Magic), it's giving it a more full way to participate in non combat situations for the Fighter half, and more ways to participate in combat for the Rogue half. The problem with each class is that either one can't participate in the full game, which is never a fun place to be in.
That's why I advocate the "Veteran" as I'm calling it, since the combination could help make a more complete character.