The Pathfinder Fighter "Weapon Training" has the same fault as the original Favored Enemy from 3.0. If the character finds a really nice Lance, he can't take full advantage of it, and bonuses for greater abilities keep advancing in a weapon group he may not be using anymore. Converting this to use the same basic mechanic as the 3.5 Favored enemy (pick a new one at each instance, and then choose a group to gain a +1) would put more of the character development in the Player's hands. Right now, it locks things at early levels.
I'd argue that the DM's an idiot for giving the party treasure they can't use.
Weapon training reflects the fighter's continued focus on a specific type of weapon. If you find a weapon that isn't part of that focus, tough. The idea is to let the fighter do more damage as he gets higher levels. What you're suggesting will cause fighters to gimp down in damage again.
Gimp down in damage again? If the character isn't using the ability (can't find/save up for, whatever), then those numbers don't help a lick.
Requiring the DM to cater to poor design isn't good. the idea of the flexibility of character creation allows classes to remain viable to growing characters, and results in not having to pre-plan a character completely, and go with whatever story the DM puts out.
Specialising in weapons has been a fighter's signature ability for a long time now, and with the introduction of weapon groups for training, instead of single weapons, you get some versatility.
When I think of warriors, I usually think of them with a signature weapon. ONe they have trained extensively. I don't see them changing that on a whim just because this one's a bit better than the old one.
Yeah, they'll just follow the normal pattern of selling 'useless' items to enhance the abilities of the ones they have (or having better signature weapons made).
And consider - if the fighter has a friendly NPC in a mounted combat order, that lance isn't REALLY useless to them.
And NO, it is not the duty of the GM to see that every piece of treasure is useful and/or valuable. I recall once giving the PCs a mummified cat, worth 500gp to a collector. Sure enough, a dragon they ran into later was noted as collecting the carcasses of rare creatures. THIS WAS NOT DELIBERATE, but emphasizes a point - adventurers tend to collect bags of holding filled with all kinds of packrat items that MIGHT be useful someday.
Not to mention that you need to carry around multiple weapons, becoming a Swiss Army Knife Char, to deal with all of the different types of damage reduction. The weapon groups help out with that at least.
I dig them.
It is a bummer about the end group and it's effectiveness but I think it would be reasonable for a DM to swap it with a previous choice if it isn't being used... or use feat retraining.
The Fighter class is always my biggest gripe with any rules tweaks and this one is no different. What I'm seeing the Pathfinder Alpha PDF is the equivalent to what is regarded on the WotC boards as complete garbage. Fighters can use a boost to damage, I don't necessarily see where they needed a boost to AC though. However, neither of these are the problems with the Fighter class in 3.5. The Combat Feats introduced in Pathfinder 3.5 are interesting, and while I haven't seen them on the table yet, they might prove to make the Fighter more useful than he has been in 3.5. I'm glad to see that the "charge up" mechanic of these Combat Feats has gone the way of the dodo.
I'm sorry if I'm being vague. In 3.5 the Fighter class relied entirely on player choice to be effective and was completely unforgiving of bad player choice. This led to a failure in design (in my opinion). A class should be effective at something by itself, player choice should shape and guide the way it is effective, should make the character personalized, but should NOT be able to make the class ineffective. What does this mean? Well, as a Fighter what is your job in the party? To kill monsters and to keep the monsters from killing the rest of your party - right? So as a Fighter you need abilities to keep enemies controlled and you need abilities that allow you to consistently deal damage to the foes. Having a high attack bonus does not allow you to consistently deal damage to the foes after a few levels however, you need to be able to deal with concealment, illusions, reach, flight, etc... In 3.5 the Fighter has virtually NO abilities to control enemies either by inflicting debilitating statuses upon them, or by limiting/controlling their movement. I'm glad to see some effects to this end in the Combat Feats.
Bottom line, in my opinion, the Fighter class as presented in Pathfinder continues to fail as a class because it does not come equipped to be able to consistently deal damage to foes and control them to a small extent throughout the levels - this is again entirely dependent upon player choice (feat choice). Now, if more and more Combat Feats come out that are all equally viable, and all allow the Fighter to consistently deal damage and control foes than it becomes a moot point, but right now I'm not seeing exactly that. Just voicing my concerns.
I feel I have to disagree with bkdubs123 on this one. To my way of thinking the fighters job has always been to deal damage and take damage. Abilities that control, influence or otherwise inhibit the enemy are the domain of spellcasters, although the rogue can fill this role under 3rd edition. The human shield aspect of the fighter was just a matter of good tactics. If the goblins wanted to attack the softer mage at the back, they have to get through the steel-plated nutcase with the sword. Stuff like pidgeon holeing classes into narrow little roles is the reason I've sided with Pathfinder over 4E.
I feel I have to disagree with bkdubs123 on this one. To my way of thinking the fighters job has always been to deal damage and take damage. Abilities that control, influence or otherwise inhibit the enemy are the domain of spellcasters, although the rogue can fill this role under 3rd edition. The human shield aspect of the fighter was just a matter of good tactics. If the goblins wanted to attack the softer mage at the back, they have to get through the steel-plated nutcase with the sword.
The Fighter's job is to deal damage and take damage. We agree on this. However, how can he do his job of taking damage if the enemies are attacking his friends? If you've ever actually had to protect buddies in a physical situation you'd know that you have to have some ability to cause enemies to attack you and not your friends in order to do your job of "taking damage."
T'Ranchule wrote:
Stuff like pidgeon holeing classes into narrow little roles is the reason I've sided with Pathfinder over 4E.
You said it yourself: The Fighter's job has always been to deal damage and take damage. This is his role. While 4E is doing this in it's own way, the principle remains the same. If the Fighter can't deal damage to the enemy and can't take damage for its allies then it's failing to do its job. Failing at its role.
What I'm seeing the Pathfinder Alpha PDF is the equivalent to what is regarded on the WotC boards as complete garbage.
Since the wotc boards are populated mostly by pre-teen magic fanboys and rabid wizards fanboys who will insult anyhting non-wizards so they get a pat on the head by wizards, I wouldn't put too much weight on what they consider garbage. (Seriously, whatever normal people might have been there must have fled long ago.)
You said it yourself: The Fighter's job has always been to deal damage and take damage. This is his role. While 4E is doing this in it's own way, the principle remains the same. If the Fighter can't deal damage to the enemy and can't take damage for its allies then it's failing to do its job. Failing at its role.
My 4e-fu is weak. I don't know much about controllers or defenders or any of that, at least in the 4e sense of those terms. I do know that 4e and 3.5e are different animals and one can't be crammed into the space filled by the other because the mechanics and the interfaces are different. They just don't match.
For example, 3.5e has no concept of Marking. In 3.5e, the GM determines which PC any given enemy (monster or other NPC) is going to attack and what form that attack takes. For example, a GM might rule that Zombies (mindless undead) will attack whichever PC is closest. So a Fighter running forward of the party to engage them becomes the only target of concern. But an intelligent and/or experienced opponent with a sense for tactics will likely see the Fighter charging forward while the Wizard is casting from the back of the formation and say to himself, "I really need to avoid that Fighter and take out that caster."
My point being that 4e arguements don't necessarily fit 3e/3.5e discussions.
Anyway, I think the Fighter needs the ability to deal a bit more damage too. My initial thoughts (I haven't play-tested anything) were that +1 weapon training seems paltry when you realize it's +4 by level 17. The +4 to hit is probably fine, but the damage increase seems small (especially when you consider the fighter is probably doing more damage purely off strength than for the weapon training damage). Here are two ideas for buffing the weapon training some:
Keep the stacking +1 to hit, but double it to +2 for damage (hit/damage = +1/+2, +2/+4, +3/+6, +4/+8). This is a little beefier, but not overly so.
Keep the stacking +1 to hit, but square the bonus for damage (hit/damage = +1/+1, +2/+4, +3/+9, +4/+16). This would be pretty agressive; maybe too much so.
I disagree that part of the fighter's role is to soak up damage. I think the role is more to soak up attacks. The fighter, like any other class, wants as many of those attack to miss as possible, decreasing his loss of HP. I believe this is what the armor training is attempting to do. Obviously, all other things remaining equal, the higher a fighter's AC, the longer ha can stay in a fight.
Are populated mostly by pre-teen magic fanboys and rabid wizards fanboys who will insult anyhting non-wizards so they get a pat on the head by wizards, I wouldn't put too much weight on what they consider garbage. (Seriously, whatever normal people might have been there must have fled long ago.)
Wow. SO not true. The reason I say the Pathfinder Fighter would be considered a garbage "Fighter Fix" (as they are so often called over on the WotC forums) is because all it does is add numbers to the class. +4 to AC, Attacks, and Damage over 20 levels does absolutely nothing to address player's concerns with the Fighter class. It's done over there all the time, people just hand out +1's here and there, throw in the Weapon Focus feat tree for free on top of the Fighter's bonus feats and call it a day. It's lazy at best, and completely missing the mark at worst.
However, this is purely within 3.5's context. With Pathfinder it is obvious that with Combat Feats many things are being looked at, altered, re-evaluated. All of this is good, and as I have said it may help the Fighter in the long run. Personally I think it's a better idea to build a Fighter class that is a capable Fighter first, rather than rely on taking more Combat Feats than anyone else to actually be a capable Fighter. That's mostly my opinion though, ignore it as you wish.
As far as discussions of roles are concerned, please don't confuse class roles as a concept that is only from 4th Edition, and as a concept that can only work in 4th Edition. Classes have always had roles in the party. If classes didn't have roles they wouldn't need to exist, and we would be playing a classless system.
Think concepts here. Conceptually, why would a party want a Fighter around? You have a party of a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric. What's the advantage of picking up a Fighter? Well, none of you are really great warriors. You want PROTECTION, right? The Fighter class should be able to soak up damage and attacks. He should actually be able to protect the party, not just run around killing enemies. The Rogue or the Wizard can do that. This isn't to say that the Fighter shouldn't also be good at killing enemies. My point is, having high AC doesn't protect the rest of the party. The Fighter needs abilities to reflect that niche he is supposed to be serving in the party.
EDIT: I also agree that, should the Weapon Training stuff remain, the damage from it needs to scale faster than the attack bonus. Double or triple speed sounds okay to me.
Having a high attack bonus does not allow you to consistently deal damage to the foes after a few levels however, you need to be able to deal with concealment, illusions, reach, flight, etc... In 3.5 the Fighter has virtually NO abilities to control enemies either by inflicting debilitating statuses upon them, or by limiting/controlling their movement. I'm glad to see some effects to this end in the Combat Feats.
Bottom line, in my opinion, the Fighter class as presented in Pathfinder continues to fail as a class because it does not come equipped to be able to consistently deal damage to foes and control them to a small extent throughout the levels...
If your argument is that they need various abilities to control enemies and inflict debilitating status, etc, and the fighters main ability is the extra feat every other level, then doesn't it make more sense to argue that there aren't enough feats that give these abilities? I always hated the fact that the fighters didn't get anything unique to themselves. They were just another feat machine. Look at it now... a 20th level fighter has 20 feats! I'd probably be making up feats like "expert basket weaver" at that point just to find something to spend them on.
I think armor and weapon training make much more sense at giving fighters unique abilities than a gazillion feats.
I can understand your argument that you can't solve problems with another +1, but I say keep the training and begin to replace some of those bonus feats with specialized abilities. You could also keep more backwards compatibility by simply making more feat that are in line with your goals and make them fighter only feats (like weapon specialization)
Keep in mind that the Paizo Fighter is the only class that gains a feat EVERY LEVEL. This might not seem important, but it embraces the glut of feats created by 3.5 with the Fighter in mind (see Player's Handbook II). That alone is an improvement.
However, I to would like to see more in Fighter options, in much the same way as Rage points allow options. HEck, I'd like to see Smite worked in a similar way. And I'm not even sure I like the idea of additional math (Points vs. X per day)! But I think it is headed in the right direction.
As a side note, it is not always neccesary to create a new mechanic to represent something non-OGL. While Pathfinder is supposed to be backwards compatible, try not to ignore such ready mechanics as feats such as Instantaneous Rage, Extended Rage, etc. They are still a viable part of 3.5, even if they cannot be reprinted as OGL. And a PRC requiring them would need extensive work to interpret how Rage points work.
Think concepts here. ... You want PROTECTION, right? The Fighter class should be able to soak up damage and attacks. He should actually be able to protect the party, not just run around killing enemies. ... My point is, having high AC doesn't protect the rest of the party. The Fighter needs abilities to reflect that niche he is supposed to be serving in the party.
So you're saying that the fighter needs to have powers or abilities or talents of whatever that directly protect other party members? I'm really just not following you here. The fighter typically protects the rest of the party by moving forward and trying to engage the bad guys "over there" instead of "back here."
I did have another thought earlier: what if the weapon training stuff were scrapped and the fighter class included bonus damage dice instead. For instance, on a full round attack, a fighter gets an extra d6 for each iterative attack he has. He starts out at level 1 with +1d6. When he reaches level 6, he gets an additional d6 for his first attack and a d6 for his second. So at level 6 he has: +6/+2d6 & +1/+1d6. At level 20, he would have +20/+4d6, +15/+3d6, +10/+2d6, & +5/+1d6. Maybe you could call it Iterative Strike or something like that. The fighter would get it at each level he gains an [additional] attack (1, 6, 11 & 16). Think of it like sneak attack damage: since the fighter is taking his time that round and not moving (FRA) he can make his attacks strike more accurately.
This would weight the attack most likely to hit with the highest expected damage and push off the lower damages to attacks more likely to miss. He would be better at defeating DR. This ability would be inherent to the fighter as a class and not tied to a weapon, feat, item, etc (it would apply to any weapon he uses, including unarmed strikes). It also has the odd advantage of making the FRA meaningful for fighter levels 1-5. The major disadvantage would be that it promotes a static battleground.
So, I've put forth several ideas for addressing the issues you've brought up in this thread. You've reiterated how you think the 3.5 fighter doesn't get it done and how the Pathfinder fighter isn't much better. I'd like to challenge you to come up with 2 or 3 ideas on how to improve the fighter, instead of rehashing how it's not very good.
So you're saying that the fighter needs to have powers or abilities or talents of whatever that directly protect other party members? I'm really just not following you here. The fighter typically protects the rest of the party by moving forward and trying to engage the bad guys "over there" instead of "back here."
But that doesn't actually protect the party. I mean, sure if the Fighter can jump in between the Wizard and an enemy attacking the Wizard and kill it in one hit, or suddenly force it away from the Wizard, then sure that's protection. Dealing more damage with his longsword than normal isn't protection. If the reason the Fighter is in a party is to protect the other party members then it ought to have abilities that allow this to happen. Since Pathfinder is continuing the tradition of feats as the Fighter's power source options like these will likely have to come from Combat Feats, though that is personally not the way I would do things. I can understand however the desire to stay as close to the 3.5 Fighter as possible.
I like the direction you're going with the extra damage idea, but I don't like the execution. Fighters don't necessarily need to deal tons more numerical damage, they just need to be able to deal the damage they can already deal reliably.
As far as coming up with ideas for ways I'd improve the Fighter class, I've got loads. Some of them might be Combat Feats, some of them might be class features. I've worked on the 3.5 classes a lot, and the Fighter is one of my favorite concepts, but the feat system of 3.5 really irks me. Here are two abilities I've come up with for the Fighter, that work in tandem to give the Fighter more options:
Combat Advantage: A Fighter knows the perfect time for an attack, having survived several wars, skirmishes, and close calls. Starting at 2nd level, whenever a Fighter attacks a foe that is flat-footed (that is, denied its dexterity bonus to AC) he gains a +2 bonus to attacks and deals extra damage equal to his Fighter level. Starting at fifth level he gains these bonuses whenever he attacks a flanked foe. Starting at eleventh level he gains these bonuses whenever he attacks a foe that has a lower base attack bonus than himself. Starting at seventeenth level he gains these bonuses whenever he attacks any foe so long as no other creatures are threatening him.
Tactical Strike: Starting at 3rd level a Fighter can perform a Tactical Strike, forgoing bonus damage from Combat Advantage in order to produce a special effect. Whenever a Fighter would make an attack which would deal additional damage from Combat Advantage he may perform a Tactical Strike, but he may only apply one effect of Tactical Strike per attack, and can only make a single Tactical Strike each round. The Fort save DC of any Tactical Strike effect is 10+1/2 Fighter Level+Fighter's Int or Wis modifier (whichever is higher).
By sacrificing 3 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his opponent to be flat-footed for 1 additional round, he can gain a free trip attempt against the struck foe at a +2 bonus, or he can cause his foe to be staggered for 1 round (Fort negates).
By sacrificing 9 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his foe to be shaken for 2d4 rounds, he can gain a free bull rush attempt against the struck foe at a +4 bonus (though he cannot follow his foe), or he can cause his foe to be unable to make a full attack or attacks of opportunity for 1 round (Fort negates).
By sacrificing 15 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his foe to be confused for 1 round, he can grant each ally adjecent to the enemy an immediate attack against the foe, or he can cause his foe to become paralyzed for 1d4 rounds (Fort negates).
Combat advantage and tactical strike seem very roguish, being based on flat-footedness and flanking and what-not. Are you trying to make the fighter more of a rogue?
bkdubs123 wrote:
By sacrificing 3 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his opponent to be flat-footed for 1 additional round, he can gain a free trip attempt against the struck foe at a +2 bonus, or he can cause his foe to be staggered for 1 round (Fort negates).
Use this and you get a flat-footed opponent and a free trip attempt with bonus and they're shaken? Wow. What exactly do those 3 things have to do with each other? It's like they're just dogpiled into 1 ability for the sake of having an ability that dogpiles a bunch of stuff into it.
I won't get into the other 2 [more powerful] options (again, I'm tired). But this just screams "abuse me." Why would you not take at least a level of rogue with this? Or improved trip (I bet the improved trip bonus stacks with the +2)? Etc. Etc.
By the way, how does this protect the party?
bkdubs123 wrote:
Fighters don't necessarily need to deal tons more numerical damage, they just need to be able to deal the damage they can already deal reliably.
Isn't this what combat advantage does? Just in a more complicated fashion, right?
Combat advantage and tactical strike seem very roguish, being based on flat-footedness and flanking and what-not. Are you trying to make the fighter more of a rogue?
I'm not trying to make the Fighter more of anything. I'm offering suggestions to improve the Fighter class. If anything a Rogue's sneak attack makes it more Fighter-y. Taking advantage of specific tactical circumstances in combat - sounds like something a Fighter should be able to to do to me. Why a Rogue is better at doing this than a trained and seasoned warrior I'll never know.
bkdubs123 wrote:
By sacrificing 3 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his opponent to be flat-footed for 1 additional round, he can gain a free trip attempt against the struck foe at a +2 bonus, or he can cause his foe to be staggered for 1 round (Fort negates).
Skeld wrote:
Use this and you get a flat-footed opponent and a free trip attempt with bonus and they're shaken? Wow. What exactly do those 3 things have to do with each other? It's like they're just dogpiled into 1 ability for the sake of having an ability that dogpiles a bunch of stuff into it.
I won't get into the other 2 [more powerful] options (again, I'm tired). But this just screams "abuse me." Why would you not take at least a level of rogue with this? Or improved trip (I bet the improved trip bonus stacks with the +2)? Etc. Etc.
You CHOOSE one of the effects for each of the Tactical Strikes. ONE. And you can only use one Tactical Strike per round.
Skeld wrote:
By the way, how does this protect the party?
If you trip someone, they are hard-pressed to attack. This is protection of a sort. If you stagger someone they can only take a move or standard action. You are limiting the enemy's effectiveness. If you bull rush someone you knock them away from your allies. If they can't take full attacks or attacks of opportunity they are limited in how effective they are against not only you, but your allies as well. This is protection. If the enemy is paralyzed, it is effectively neutralized, meaning that your party is "protected" from it until you kill it, or the paralyze effect wears off.
I could, and have, come up with more identifably "protective" abilities. Things like jumping in front of a blow meant for your allies in a very bodyguard like manner seem to be very fitting for a Fighter class.
bkdubs123 wrote:
Fighters don't necessarily need to deal tons more numerical damage, they just need to be able to deal the damage they can already deal reliably.
Skeld wrote:
Isn't this what combat advantage does? Just in a more complicated fashion, right?
While Combat Advantage does add damage to the Fighter's attacks, it also grants other options to his attacks which can keep his party safer than just dealing that extra damage.
Would you like me to fish out some other more obviously defender-ish, protection-y abilities?
Not able (or wanting) to read every post hopefully this isn't repetition. If you look at two games out, Spycraft & Arcana Evolved, there are feats (Spycraft) and abilities (both) that can help with the various issues raised here. In Spycraft the weapon specialization goes all the way to a +12 damage (I believe, I am sure it goes to +10) with an attack bonus of +4 or +6. In Arcana Evolved they introduce a whole new system of abilities called combat rites that give the fighter (they do not have a fighter, they have ritual warrior, unfettered and warmain) more options in combat.
While Combat Advantage does add damage to the Fighter's attacks, it also grants other options to his attacks which can keep his party safer than just dealing that extra damage.
Most of which can be accomplished using existing mechanics like feats, skills, etc.
bkdubs123 wrote:
If you trip someone, they are hard-pressed to attack.
They are even harder pressed to attack when dead. ;)
While Combat Advantage does add damage to the Fighter's attacks, it also grants other options to his attacks which can keep his party safer than just dealing that extra damage.
Most of which can be accomplished using existing mechanics like feats, skills, etc.
I don't like how the existing 3.5 feats system works, personally. The suggestions I gave above are assuming I was designing for 3.5 and assuming that I am coming pretty close to ignoring the 3.5 feat system. As I have said, the Combat Feats of Pathfinder can be used to achieve the same sort of effects I am looking for.
Skeld wrote:
They are even harder pressed to attack when dead. ;)
Well, if all you want to do as a Fighter is deal boatloads of damage, you're still going to have to overcome DR, Concealment, Miss Chance, Illusions, etc. I personally don't want to just deal boatloads of damage when I play a Fighter. If that was all I wanted out of a class I'd play a Barbarian, yet even the Barbarian gets more options now with the Pathfinder Rage system. In order to fill the role a protecting the party with damage, the Fighter would have to deal so much damage as to eclipse the Wizard as the most immediate threat so that enemies would have to kill him first lest they all die in 2 rounds, OR he'd have to be really maneuverable so that he can position himself anywhere and deal boatloads of damage.
The suggestions I gave above are assuming I was designing for 3.5 and assuming that I am coming pretty close to ignoring the 3.5 feat system.
Backwards compatibility means you're stuck with the feat system, but at an accelerated rate. If one of your major assumptions is that this feat system is gone or unrecognizable, your design would be at least partially invalidated.
bkdubs123 wrote:
Well, if all you want to do as a Fighter is deal boatloads of damage, you're still going to have to overcome DR, Concealment, Miss Chance, Illusions, etc. I personally don't want to just deal boatloads of damage when I play a Fighter.
Something you might consider: It's unwise ignoring feats and the fact that the fighter has a great number of them. Choosing feats for your fighter from a large pool grants you a high number of possible combinations with a low amount of repeatability. There will always be feats that stand-out higher than others (like power attack), but with a large pool of feats to sample from, no 2 fighters need be the same.
Granting a class ability like the combat advantage you proposed will mean all fighters have that capability. The result is a net loss of options for fighters of that level and an increase in the "cookie cutter" effect where all fighters of equal level look the same. For example, your combat advantage and tacktical strike abilites would be near meaningless to a fighter who specializes in ranged weapons.
I personally don't want to just deal boatloads of damage when I play a Fighter. If that was all I wanted out of a class I'd play a Barbarian...
On this subject, I think the primary role of the fighter is to deal boatloads of damage. Deal boatloads of damage to any enemy that presents itself, under any conditions, in a variey of different combinations, with any weapons (or without a weapon), and to dole it out all day long without running out of points, charges, daily uses etc.
At the end of the day, when the wizard's out of spells, and the barbaian's out of rage points, and the cleric doesn't have any turn attempts left, and they all want to rest, the fighter shold say: "Aww, really? I was hoping we lok down that next hallway. C'mon guys, just one more room!
Backwards compatibility means you're stuck with the feat system, but at an accelerated rate. If one of your major assumptions is that this feat system is gone or unrecognizable, your design would be at least partially invalidated.
It's pretty close to unrecognizable already, or at least it's (hopefully) vastly improved. Combat Feats offer real options to Fighters, not just Power Attack and Weapon Focus. This is a step in the right direction, and a step away from the existing 3.5 feats system. It isn't actually very backwards compatible, because to convert your 3.5 Fighter to a 3.P Fighter you'll need to take entirely new feats.
Skeld wrote:
Something you might consider: It's unwise ignoring feats and the fact that the fighter has a great number of them. Choosing feats for your fighter from a large pool grants you a high number of possible combinations with a low amount of repeatability. There will always be feats that stand-out higher than others (like power attack), but with a large pool of feats to sample from, no 2 fighters need be the same.
Again, I said, the above abilities are basically ignoring the 3.5 feat system, not the Pathfinder 3.5 feat system. Since I've never designed for Paizo, or Pathfinder, I find it irrelevant that you find my above suggestions incompatible with the Pathfinder system. The fact is, they actually are still very relevant. Hell, many of the Tactical Strike options can, and probably something similar will, be used as Combat Feats in the existing Pathfinder 3.5 feat system (this isn't me being conceited, it's me recognizing that the tactical strike stuff isn't amazingly original).
Skeld wrote:
Granting a class ability like the combat advantage you proposed will mean all fighters have that capability. The result is a net loss of options for fighters of that level and an increase in the "cookie cutter" effect where all fighters of equal level look the same. For example, your combat advantage and tacktical strike abilites would be near meaningless to a fighter who specializes in ranged weapons.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the only trouble ranged Fighters would have using Combat Advantage would be the flanking part, which is easily remedied with a tasty feat. I don't make the above abilities with the mindset to make all Fighters the same. The mindset I DO have is to make all Fighters actually competent Fighters before feats are taken into account. All Barbarians are strong, raging warriors without having to take feats. All Rogues are cunning, skilled, and sneaky without having to take feats. Why should Fighters not actually be good Fighters before having to take feats. The feats should help give the Fighter an identity, perhaps a specific specialization, but he should be able to fight before taking the "Swing Stick" feat.
It's pretty close to unrecognizable already, or at least it's (hopefully) vastly improved.
The later, emphasized portion of this statment is correct. The former portion, not as much. They're still called feats and most have the same names, but with modifed mechanics, but they work the same way as feats in the 3.5 system. They are definately a step in the right direction.
bkdubs123 wrote:
Since I've never designed for Paizo, or Pathfinder, I find it irrelevant that you find my above suggestions incompatible with the Pathfinder system.
Hmm, but you are on these boards debating and making suggestions for changes to the 3.5 system that are like to at least be read by the designer (let's hope). That alone gives your ideas more weight than if we were having this discussion on the wizards' boards or some other arena.
In all fairness, though, I didn't say your ideas were incompatible with Pathfinder. My point was that they make more sense as feats that can be taken per the player's option, instead of fighter abailities that all fighters get at level x. And some of them already exist as feats anyway, so...
bkdubs123 wrote:
I don't make the above abilities with the mindset to make all Fighters the same.
I realize that isn't what you're trying to do, but that's effectively what happens. What I'm saying is instead of letting the player choose between doing these 3 things, let him choose from among 30 things. That's what feats do. More feats with more options leads to more diverse builds.
bkdubs123 wrote:
Hell, many of the Tactical Strike options can, and probably something similar will, be used as Combat Feats in the existing Pathfinder 3.5 feat system...
Like I've stated earlier ("they make more sense as feats") and have quoted you as saying, if these abilites are just cleverly disguised feats, it doesn't fix the problem you have:
bkdubs123 wrote:
...make all Fighters actually competent Fighters before feats are taken into account.
So, my questions is, without taking feats into account, how do you make the fighter a competent fighter first and foremost?
I realize that isn't what you're trying to do, but that's effectively what happens. What I'm saying is instead of letting the player choose between doing these 3 things, let him choose from among 30 things. That's what feats do. More feats with more options leads to more diverse builds.
I'm certainly not suggesting that all the Fighter should get is something like Combat Advantage and be done with it. If the feats system actually works (and Pathfinder 3.5's seems to be much better at least), then by all means keep the feats in.
Skeld wrote:
bkdubs123 wrote:
...make all Fighters actually competent Fighters before feats are taken into account.
So, my questions is, without taking feats into account, how do you make the fighter a competent fighter first and foremost?
How? Well, here's what doesn't make a competent fighter: Full BAB. This is the first step. The Warrior NPC class is not a competent fighter. Full Weapons and Armors proficiencies. This is the second step. Adding Plate Mail to the list of the Warrior's proficiencies does not make him a competent fighter. A Fighter that can't effectively kill the enemies or defend his party is an incompetent fighter. When in the dark, and without darkvision if the Fighter can't at least continue to fight with reasonable success he's incompetent. When an enemy has protected himself with magical wardings if the Fighter is completely rendered useless against the enemy he's incompetent. If a monster's scales are too tough for the poor Fighter to muscle his way through he's incompetent.
Fighters need to be able to solve these problems all the time. There are too many situations to name in which the Fighter (at least the 3.5 Fighter) becomes useless. Being a competent fighter means more than knowing how to swing a sword - it means knowing what to do when just swinging your sword doesn't cut it.
What are some suggestions? All Fighters should be able to overcome DR in some way. All Fighters should be able to fight even while blinded (no I don't consider contending with being flat-footed, having to first pinpoint an enemy's location, and then rolling against 50% miss chance being able to fight - that's being able to flail around blindly). All Fighters should be able to, at a certain level, pierce magical defenses. All Fighters should be able to discern real foes from illusory ones (this one might not be to your liking, but it's a mechanical liability of the Fighter. Illusion magic like Mirror Image makes the Fighter nearly inconsequential).
A final suggestion. If a Fighter finds his offensive abilities incapable of winning the fight he should still be able to rely on superior defensive talents to at least keep himself and his party from being killed. Say, if a Vrock has cast Mirror Image, and the Fighter has no idea what to attack, he should be able to fall back near his friends, and protect himself and them from harm.
How about this for countering DR and protecting friends:
Skeld/bkdubs123 Fighter
1 Bonus Feat, Trusted Defender
2 Bonus Feat
3 Armor Training
4 Bonus Feat
5 Weapon Training, Ignore DR
6 Bonus Feat
7 Armor Training
8 Bonus Feat
9 Weapon Training
10 Bonus Feat, Ignore DR, Improved Trusted Defender
11 Armor Training
12 Bonus Feat
13 Weapon Training
14 Bonus Feat
15 Armor Training, Ignore DR
16 Bonus Feat
17 Weapon Training
18 Bonus Feat
19 Armor Mastery
20 Bonus Feat, Weapon Mastery, Ignore DR, Greater Trusted Defender
Ignore DR allows you to select a DR alignment type (chaotic, evil, good, lawful) or DR material type (adamantine, cold iron, magic, silver). The fighter's attacks with all weapons overcome DR of that type. The chosen alignment type must match the fighter's ethical/moral alignemtn (a good fighter's attacks can't be considered evil for the sake of overcoming DR). Once selected, these cannot be changed.
Trusted Defender allows a fighter to absorb attacks meant for others. To use this, a fighter must place himself in a square adjacent to the ally in question (as a move action, provoking AOO's normally) and declare himself the ally's trusted defender (as a standard action). When that ally is attacked, the fighter immediately puts himself btween the ally and attacker. This forces the fighter into the ally's square and grants the ally a 5' step (as a free action that does not provoke). The attacker rolls against the ally's AC. Any and all attacks that would have hit the ally instead hit the fighter. All damage is resolved against the fighter and any secondary effects (such as poison) affect the fighter normally (such as on a failed save).
Improved Trusted Defender works just like Trusted Defender, but the fighter gains DR 5/- against attacks that hit. Declaring becomes a swift action, instead of a standard action.
Greater Trusted Defender grants DR 10/- against hits. Declaring becomes a free action.
I don't know if I like it or not yet. It needs alot of vetting. This is mostly an academic exercise anyway.
It's on the right track that's for sure. Making sure the Fighter is always a relevant combatant, no matter what style of fighter the player has decided to play (before feats) is the goal and class features are the key.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't make as many suggestions to this end as you might like. I'm trying to save some of my better concepts as my own intellectual property. Here's a really, really, watered down Fighter concept I came up with though a while ago (one that I'm not too proud of to let everyone see - it's incredibly basic):
Spoiler:
The Fighting-Man
"Stay close, bookworm, I'll getcha through this," - Red "Redblade" Wilson, human Fighting-Man.
Hit Dice: d12
Saves: Choose one Good save. The others are Poor.
Base Attack: Full
LV Class Features
1. Decisive Strike 1/enc, Weapon Aptitude, Quick Draw
2. Weapon Focus, Uncanny Dodge
3. Line of Fire 1/enc
4. Weapon Specialization, Improved Uncanny Dodge
5. Decisive Strike 2/enc
6. Greater Weapon Focus
7. Line of Fire 2/enc
8. Greater Weapon Specialization
9. Decisive Strike 3/enc
10. Improved Critical, Lightning Draw
11. Line of Fire 3/enc
12. Melee Weapon Mastery
13. Decisive Strike 4/enc
14. Combat Tactician, Advanced Placement
15. Line of Fire 4/enc
16. Overwhelming Assault, Weapon Genius
17. Decisive Strike 5/enc
18. Weapon Supremacy
19. Line of Fire 5/enc
20. Critical Insight, Consummate Warrior[/code]
Class Skills (4+Int per level): Appraise, Balance, Climb, Craft, Heal, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Profession (Bodyguard), Ride, Sense Motive, Spot, Tumble
Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons, all armors and shields.
Weapon Aptitude: As Warblade.
Bonus Feats: The Fighting Man gets several feats as bonus feats throughout his levels. He does not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. At first level he gains Quick Draw as a bonus feat. At 2nd level he gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. At 4th level he gains Weapon Specialization as a bonus feat. At 6th level he gains Greater Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. At 8th level he gains Greater Weapon Specialization as a bonus feat. At 10th level he gains Improved Critical as a bonus feat. At 12th level he gains Melee Weapon Mastery* as a bonus feat. At 14th level he gains Combat Tactician* as a bonus feat. At 16th level he gains Overwhelming Assault* as a bonus feat. At 18th level he gains Weapon Supremacy* as a bonus feat.
*This feat is found in Player's Handbook II.
Decisive Strike: At first level, once per encounter, a Fighting-Man can declare any attack he makes as a Decisive Strike. A Decisive Strike gains a bonus to hit equal to the higher of his Intelligence of Wisdom modifiers (if positive), deals double damage, and automatically overcomes the DR of the struck target. Every 4 levels after 1st, a Fighting-Man gains additional uses of this ability each encounter.
Uncanny Dodge: As Barbarian. This becomes Improved Uncanny Dodge at 4th level.
Line of Fire: At 3rd level, once per encounter, a Fighting-Man can elect to leap in front of an attack meant to strike an ally, so long as that ally is within 10ft of the Fighting-Man. This ability requires no action on the Fighting-Man's part, however he must declare use of this ability before the attack is rolled. Using this ability causes the attack to target the Fighting-Man rather than his ally. If it would miss the Fighting-Man it has no chance to hit anyone else. Every 4 levels after 3rd, a Fighting-Man gains additional uses of this ability each encounter.
Lightning Draw: At 10th level, a Fighting-Man can draw a weapon at any time, even on other's turns, using no action.
Advanced Placement: Starting at 14th level, once per round, at any time during the round even on other's turns, a Fighting-Man can take a move action.
Weapon Genius: If you make an attack roll with a weapon each round for at least 3 rounds of combat you can change the designated weapon for any feat you have that applies only to a single weapon (As Weapon Aptitude) to the weapon you are wielding.
Critical Insight: You are immune to precision damage. Whenever you threaten a critical it is automatically confirmed.
Consummate Warrior: Flavor ability. People know you. You're kind of a big deal. You get a +10 circumstance bonus to charisma checks and charisma based skill checks when dealing with any humanoid creature that has full BAB.
What would have to be done with this is to replace the fixed feats granted to the class with static bonuses like Weapon and Armor Training, and then grant it bonus feats of the player's choosing on top of that, say at 1st level and additional ones every 3rd level after. Weapon Aptitude and Weapon Genius would then either have to be adapted to the new Pathfinder feats system, or replaced entirely. The only way something as simple as this would work though would be if the class had options through feats to gain the ability to see through illusions to attack his foes and to pierce magical defenses easier as those are still huge problems in a lot of campaigns.
From as much as you've talked, I expected to be wowed with some kind of really nifty ideas that took fighters in a new direction. What I found was your attempt at a fighter using non-OGL WOTC IP and 4e-flavored per encounter abilities (and a lukewarm attempt, by your own admission).
So far, you've managed to tell me what you don't like about the 3.5 and Pathfinder fighter, but when challenged, you say that your own best ideas are too super-secret to share because you might want to sell it on teh intertubes or something? Are your mechanics too important to share?
Really, I'm interested in Pathfinder. I'm interested in swapping ideas relevant to making the Pathfinder RPG better. I'm not interested in 4e or someone's homebrew rule system. I realize Pathfinder might not be a product you're interested in or want/plan to support and that's ok because it's your decision.
From as much as you've talked, I expected to be wowed with some kind of really nifty ideas that took fighters in a new direction. What I found was your attempt at a fighter using non-OGL WOTC IP and 4e-flavored per encounter abilities (and a lukewarm attempt, by your own admission).
Pfft, not trying to wow anyone, not with the above class concept that's for sure. Yes, I want to keep some of my best material to myself for now. What's so bad about this? Anything I put up on the internet can be blatantly taken. I love how any mention of anything per-encounter is 4E-flavored... *rolls eyes*
What new directions does the Pathfinder Fighter take? Except by making actually relevant feats for him? If I put up really nifty ideas that take Fighters in a new direction they would not be anywhere near the Pathfinder design tenet of backwards compatibility, and they would be ideas ripe for the taking by anyone with the ability to actually publish them (not me, that's for sure).
The above Combat Advantage and Tactical Strike mechanics are a part of a more complex Fighter concept of mine which is more creative than the Fighting-Man, but it almost entirely disregards feats. I feel no need to put up anymore of its mechanics since they are irrelevant to Pathfinder's Fighter.
All I can do with the Pathfinder Fighter to make suggestions to improve it, in your eyes I suppose that is, is to create Combat Feats. Class Features are apparently out of the question (As I actually think per encounter abilities are really good for warrior types). However, I do have one kind of cool set of abilities for a generic Fighter-type that I don't think should be relegated to feats. It gives the Fighter class a sort of "metagame" that some people (including myself) would like to see him have.
Spoiler:
Combat Focus: By spending a move action, a Fighter of 4th level or higher can enter a focused state of mind. This state lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 Fighter level +2, and during the focus the Fighter gains a +2 bonus to the saving throw of his choice. As a swift or immediate action the Fighter can voluntarily end his focus to reroll a single d20 roll.
Then you could have feats or class features (maybe both) that gain benefits either while you maintain Combat Focus, or if you choose to expend it. There was a feat sort of like the above presented in PHB2 and a chain linked to it. It was pretty good, but I think the concept should be more ingrained into the Fighter class itself.
Here's a couple things I came up with for it:
Shellshock: As a swift action, a Fighter of 8th level or higher can voluntarily end his Combat Focus to cause his next attack to damage his foe's natural armor or damage reduction. When he makes an attack this way he reduces his foe's natural armor by his Str bonus, or he reduces his foe's damage reduction by 1/2 (rounded up) for 1 hour. Foes can negate this effect by succeeding on a Fort save DC 10+1/2 Fighter Levels+Fighter's Int or Wis modifier (whichever is higher). He must choose either to damage natural armor or DR when making the attack.
The above could be a feat with BAB +8 and Combat Focus as a requirement.
Whispering Wind: Starting at 14th level, while benefiting from Combat Focus, a Fighter gains Tremorsense out to 30ft.
This one seems more suited to be an actual Fighter class feature to me.
I have some other abilities to those same ends, but they are only relevant with my own personal house rules. The concept has tons of room for growth, at least I personally think. What do you think?
I personally liked the COmbat Focus from PH2. THought it really enhanced the fighter. I would not mind seeing something similar in PFRPG.
As far as class features go, I think many people are overlooking that those feats that a fighter gain quite a few of are class features for them. They just are not listed under the class itself. I suspect if the combat feats had been listed under fighter it would have changed many people's perception that fighters dont get enough class features.
As far as class features go, I think many people are overlooking that those feats that a fighter gain quite a few of are class features for them. They just are not listed under the class itself. I suspect if the combat feats had been listed under fighter it would have changed many people's perception that fighters dont get enough class features.
My biggest gripe is that there is absolutely no reason why a Fighter shouldn't be able to have combat relevant class features AND feats. +4 to AC, Attacks, and Damage aren't class features. They're lame bonuses that don't help very much.
I'm all for versatility, especially with the Fighter class, but what's wrong with giving the Fighter class features that represent training and abilities that all Fighters have to supplement the versatility they gain from Combat Feats?
My biggest gripe is that there is absolutely no reason why a Fighter shouldn't be able to have combat relevant class features AND feats. +4 to AC, Attacks, and Damage aren't class features. They're lame bonuses that don't help very much.
I'm all for versatility, especially with the Fighter class, but what's wrong with giving the Fighter class features that represent training and abilities that all Fighters have to supplement the versatility they gain from Combat Feats?
Lost track of the number of times even a +2 to AC or Attack or Damage would have saved a character of mine or a friend's. Nevermind the lowering the action penalty...saves that humiliating falling to your death while trying to climb in heavy armor.
An inherent problem in giving class features to fighters aside from feats, armor and weapon training is that you would end up with probably the most complex class out there. Since to include those class features would most likely involve covering all fighting styles as class features. Otherwise people are going to complain that their favorite fighting style was not included. This would be very cumbersome and lead to the fighter being easily a 5 or 6 page class.
No you just make class features that are so generic that they are usable by any type of warrior, utilizing any type of fighting style. Trust me, there are effects other than a boost to AC, Attacks, and Damage which can be utilized by every style of fighting.
No you just make class features that are so generic that they are usable by any type of warrior, utilizing any type of fighting style. Trust me, there are effects other than a boost to AC, Attacks, and Damage which can be utilized by every style of fighting.
Many combat effects are going to boil down to a boost to AC, Attack or Damage though. Most maneuvers make it either harder to hit you, easier to hit your foe or allow you to hit harder/more precisely. The exact thematics are more the realm of description than mechanics to me. Combined with feats, these pretty much cover most fighting styles already. The other option is to go more detailed into combat, which really does not work that well with a 6-second round and a roll that is stated to actually represent several attacks and jockeying for position. Even in games with 3-second rounds detailed combat can get very cumbersome and still is not terribly realistic...when you consider there are humans who can strike several times in the matter of a second.
Let me try and reiterate this so it makes sense. I seem to be doing a pitiful job presenting my points clearly.
1) Getting a boost to your AC does nothing to defend your party. If part of the Fighter's job is defend the party, perhaps he should be able to grant other members of his party bonus to AC. No this doesn't have to be arbitrary, or supernatural. I'll give examples later.
2) Getting a boost to your Attack rolls does nothing to help you bypass concealment or miss chance. Nor does it matter at all if you can't see your enemy, or if your enemy is hiding a being a wall of force or something similar. +2 to hit after 10th level isn't cutting anymore. Enemies are shrouded in Deeper Darkness, covered in Blur or Displacement effects, putting up Walls of Stone/Iron/Force, or hiding within a menagerie of illusionary effects. What is the Fighter going to do? Well when it comes to the walls he can just obliterate them, but he should be able to deal with the hardness and really hack through pretty easily. With the other instances, which are amazingly common, the Fighter needs ways he can still perform.
3) Getting a +4 boost to your Damage rolls isn't really as effective when most enemies after 10th level have DR 5/cold iron or adamantine or good and magic. At least. This isn't to mention enemies with regeneration or fast healing 10 or more, or enemies with DR fantastically higher than 5. Now the ability to bypass DR entirely, or at least some DR would be very welcome for the Fighter.
What to do?
Defensive Training: Instead of Armor Training, give the Fighter a competence bonus to AC. Period. It shouldn't matter that he's wearing armor, because it isn't the armor that's getting better at defending the Fighter, it's the Fighter that's getting better at defending himself. Extend this bonus to adjacent allies against all attacks. You could even extend this bonus to all allies within 10ft. You could explain this as the Fighter actively defending his allies, or even him just giving advice on dodging and blocking. He knows what he's talking about after all. He's been training with this his entire life. Double the bonus when he fights defensively.
Combat Focus: What fighting style doesn't require you to remain focused and alert? Drunken Boxing? Damn. Missed one. Regardless, this would be how the Fighter maintains his ability to fight even among the magical defenses of his opponents. I already mentioned how to gain combat focus, and I already mentioned a couple things that can be used with Combat Focus. No. I don't think Combat Focus should be a feat. Why? Because if every Fighter is expected to be focused then every Fighter should have the ability to gain the focus. Benefits of Combat Focus could include bonuses to attacks, damage, skills, saves, the ability to fight blind/deaf, the ability to discern illusions from reality, the ability to pierce DR/Hardness, the ability to counteract/nullify regeneration/fast healing at least for a few rounds, even to force save or dies on enemies struck by the Fighter. What save-or-dies? Yeah, 10th level spellcasters can do it, what's wrong with a Fighter being able to kill someone with a perfectly placed swing of his sword? If anything, I'd hope the Fighter is at least as lethal as the Wizard or Cleric, if not much more.
Defending the party comes down to tactics as much if not more so than class features or feats.
Choose where you fight, how you fight, exploit the terrain to isolate casters from melee attacks and provide cover from missile fire. A good fighter knows how to do this. They form choke points that force you to get past them to get to a caster. Leaving most opponents with two options: run the gauntlet and hope they can make it past with their reduced AC or keep their AC and try to use several 5-foot adjusts to get past the fighter (meaning several rounds of combat with a dedicated combatant). If someone cannot come up with basic tactics then I think they should be playing another class not a fighter.
The game should not have to hold someone's hand to make them effective at their class. Which is what i have seen some people seem to think. Effectiveness is only partially from class, the bulk of it comes from the player not the rules.
Um, in every game I've ever played it was the DM that got to choose where the players fight, not the other way around. How does a Fighter take advantage of the terrain any better than any other class? I don't see any class features to help him out with that. Honestly how does he create "choke points" at all? He occupies a 5ft square. He has NO way to keep enemies from running around him to attack anyone else, and no way to protect those people if the enemies do choose to. If he has reach that helps, but then that forces all Fighters to use reach to be effective - not fun.
Um, in every game I've ever played it was the DM that got to choose where the players fight, not the other way around. How does a Fighter take advantage of the terrain any better than any other class? I don't see any class features to help him out with that. Honestly how does he create "choke points" at all? He occupies a 5ft square. He has NO way to keep enemies from running around him to attack anyone else, and no way to protect those people if the enemies do choose to. If he has reach that helps, but then that forces all Fighters to use reach to be effective - not fun.
You missed the point entirely I think, bkdubs. I never said class features let you take advantage of terrain. I said a player running a fighter should know the basics of tactics or play another class. Creating choke points is easy if you use the terrain and the tools of war. Firstly, the fighter occupies a 5-foot square, but threatens every square around him. That gives him a 15x15 area to attack within. Moving into that area quickly means an attack of opportunity (sometimes at a reduced AC) or at least two rounds of combat with him. Control the terrain, carry caltrops/alchemist fire to scatter on your flanks and to the side leaving one way...through you. Clog up the corridor with debris, make sure casters have good cover or concealment. Done well, one fighter can hold a chokepoint against several opponents.
If the fighter's role in the party is defend one of the casters, position yourself next to that caster with a ranged weapon and a melee weapon ready. Closing 60 feet while under fire from a archer specialist fighter is bad for one's health. Secondly, prepared casters are far from defenseless.
There is a rather long list of combat modifiers due to terrain, lighting, concealment, cover, etc. A fighter should be familair with those to exploit them or take steps to remove that advantage from the enemy.
This is all a function of the player and no amount of class features or feats is going to replace it. The fighter is the rules lawayer of the battlefield, someone playing a fighter should try to know as much about combat modifiers in the game as he can...his character does.
As for the DM always getting to choose where players fight. I find that to be a lousy trait in a DM. If the party has a rogue or ranger they can scout the enemy..learn their numbers, learn the terrain around them, locate their casters and leaders, etc. A DM who regularly denies his players that option is a very poor game master in my view. My current group only fights on ground of the enemy's choosing if we dont have any other choice, which usually we do. You win by making the enemy fight on your terms not by fighting on theirs.
I fail to see how scattering "debris" makes any sort of effective choke point. Not only is the Fighter now wasting his actions to throw down caltrops these, "barriers" are all too easily jumped over, or even outright ignored by some creatures/enemies. How does tossing Alchemist's Fires help at all?
Yes, the Fighter character knows all the rules of combat, and a player playing should know them and take full advantage of them. But then... Why can't the Barbarian's player and character? The Fighter should be better at it, but he just isn't. I don't mean just give the Fighter arbitrary bonuses to Combat Maneuvers, but I do think he should have class features that allow him to be master of tactical combat that he is flavored to be.
When I say that I think that part of the Fighter's job should be protecting his party I don't just mean the Wizard sitting in the back. I mean HIS PARTY. That means the Rogue flanking with him. That means the stubborn Barbarian who's in over his head in the middle of four Blackscale Lizardfolk. That means being able to defend one ally in one round, tumble over to another and intercept a near-fatal attack meant for another ally the next (yes, I said tumble, why isn't it a Fighter class skill?).
Honestly, what is so wrong with giving meaningful class features to the Fighter in addition to his Bonus Feats?
Rarely is a fight in a large, open area devoid of some sort of obstacle. Usually, there's one or two choke points that naturally appear, even in a completely random map. Even in an open area, its a simple matter for the fighter to get into melee, and once he's there he's impossible to *actually* ignore, provided his comrades have the good sense to get the hell outta Dodge via Total Defense + move or a similar tactic. At that point, perhaps the wizard has wasted a turn avoiding death, but the monster must do the same, and the other three characters are pounding it. And if its a group of monsters in a balanced encounter, then its unlikely any individual ones prove enough of a threat that the wizard's in any real danger of getting 1-rounded.
Long story short, in my experience I've rarely had situations where monsters can just 'walk around' a fighter. And Improved Trip, Improved Sunder, Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush, etc. all go a LONG way to keeping your allies out of harm's way. I like the fighter as is, he's a box of feats, he shouldn't be much more than that. If you *must* change him, just make up new feats with lots of prerequisites that only a fighter has any real chance of getting. You've now made a fighter-focused power that caters to his existing abilities rather than adding specificity to an intentionally vanilla class.
If you *must* change him, just make up new feats with lots of prerequisites that only a fighter has any real chance of getting. You've now made a fighter-focused power that caters to his existing abilities rather than adding specificity to an intentionally vanilla class.
That's exactly how NOT to fix the problem. Then, yes, only the Fighter can take them, but now to take them he has to spend all his feats in completing "chains." This is how 3.5 did the Fighter and it SUCKED. Feats can definitely be done better, and Pathfinder is doing them better. Perhaps a way to help is to make feats with Fighter levels as prerequisites. Now he really does have "Class Features" that the player can choose to take - or not.
If you really think the class should be as vanilla as it "thinks" it is, and as customizable as possible than there is really no need for the Barbarian, or any sort of Swashbuckler class, or for the Rogue to be as combat oriented as it is. Any martial related power should then be Fighter feats and kill all these other classes. I certainly know Pathfinder doesn't want to do this, so since the Rogue is going to be combat oriented and the Barbarian is going to exist Fighters might as well have a unique combat shtick as well, not just a unique method of getting a combat shtick(By having more combat feats than anyone).
No one has said anything about Combat Focus. I think it's about as vanilla an ability as you can get, and wow there are so many things you can do with it! I don't deny the +X to attacks, AC, damage, and the -X to check penalty helps. It does. It doesn't help enough. It doesn't help the Fighter deal with concealment, miss chance, illusion, darkness, any number of conditions that can literally make the Fighter utterly worthless. But Combat Focus CAN! You can couple it with class features, or, if you MUST, you can make feats that work with it. The features/feats could have effects that key off of either whether you are in focus, or off of expending your focus. There's nice tension there and you can do TONS of cool stuff with it.
