Troll Lord Games

The Fighter seems to be lacking a lot of the special skills and abilities of the other classes, which is not to say that they're weak so much as they could perhaps use a few more distinguishing traits. Combat Dominance is a nice ability, but rather specialized. I've seen some pretty good ideas for alternate abilities, so I thought I'd present a few of my own.

Combat Flexibility: Fighters are inherently flexible in their tactics, and can emphasize accuracy at the expense of damage, power at the expense of accuracy, defence at the expense of offense, and so on. Other classes can attempt such exchanges with a successful SIEGE check, but the Fighter can do it automatically. The four following are examples of what could be done:

Power Attack: A Fighter can exchange their Strength bonus to BtH for extra damage on a 1:1 basis.
Precise Attack: A Fighter can exchange their Strength bonus to damage for additional BtH.
Defensive Tactics: A Fighter can exchange their Strength bonus to damage for extra AC.
Offensive Tactics: A Fighter can exchange their Dexterity bonus to AC for a bonus to BtH.

Combat Challenge: This Fighter specializes in single combat, and at 4th level, can make attempt to oblige an intelligent enemy to fight the Fighter singlehanded. If the enemy fails their Charisma save, they must direct all of their attacks towards the Fighter. At 8th level, they do so at a -2 penalty. At 12th level, the Fighter gains +2 to damage rolls against this enemy. This ability can be used once per combat encounter. This ability would replace Combat Dominance. This ability could also work nicely for the Knight.

Another option would be to draw up a list of Combat Feats, gainable at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th levels, that work much like Feats, but would be unique to the Fighter, and replace Combat Dominance. This might be a wee bit too crunchy, though, and Combat Dominance serves a pretty important purpose in a party- crowd control.

How about the rest of you? I've seen some cool ideas in the past, and no doubt some of you have others!

I think there used to be an Ultimate Fighter Thread somewhere.

You have some good ideas there. I do think one innovation the front liners need is a bit more of a tactical decision before each swing. But we definitely don't want to go full 3e on the problem. One issue with your solution is it scales oddly (so a +3 STR bonus is extremely powerful at 1st level but more of a nice bump at 10th or 15th level)

I feel that C&C does a good job with the "fighter problem" from the old rules, where a fighter coud not keep up with the other warriors at low levels, or the spell casters at mid levels (no one keeps up with the spellcasters at high levels).

One change I think would improve the C&C fighter is an attack progression where level 1-4 is 1 attack/round, 5-9 is 3/2, 10-14 is 2/1, and 15-20 is 5/2 (if anyone ever got that far). The importance of that is the fighter has a nice power up to look forward to at 5th level, just like the spell casters with their shiny new 3rd level spells. Waiting until 10th level is too long of a wait .

Aramis wrote:I think there used to be an Ultimate Fighter Thread somewhere.

You have some good ideas there. I do think one innovation the front liners need is a bit more of a tactical decision before each swing. But we definitely don't want to go full 3e on the problem. One issue with your solution is it scales oddly (so a +3 STR bonus is extremely powerful at 1st level but more of a nice bump at 10th or 15th level)

I feel that C&C does a good job with the "fighter problem" from the old rules, where a fighter coud not keep up with the other warriors at low levels, or the spell casters at mid levels (no one keeps up with the spellcasters at high levels).

One change I think would improve the C&C fighter is an attack progression where level 1-4 is 1 attack/round, 5-9 is 3/2, 10-14 is 2/1, and 15-20 is 5/2 (if anyone ever got that far). The importance of that is the fighter has a nice power up to look forward to at 5th level, just like the spell casters with their shiny new 3rd level spells. Waiting until 10th level is too long of a wait .

One possibility is that at levels 1 to 4, the Fighter would have to make a SIEGE check to succeed in the exchange, like anyone else, and then at level 5 and up, they could make the exchange freely. Either that or limiting the exchange to +2 until a certain point, and then allowing them to do it freely.

I agree that the C&C Fighter is better-designed than the base fighters of some other systems, but it would be nice to see just a little more tactical diversity. The attack progression is what they have in the "AD&D 3rd edition" rules by csperkins1970, I'm pretty sure. It makes some sense. My games, theoretically, go up to 25th level, so it'd probably go to 3 attacks. It would give the Fighter something to look forward to, that's for sure.

I still like the idea of exchanging the bonus tactically, though ... just a little trick that the Fighter has.

KaiserKris wrote:
I still like the idea of exchanging the bonus tactically, though ... just a little trick that the Fighter has.

I agree. It is a tidy way to bring in some tactics without bringing in a system of feats and counter feats. I think the fighter would be improved if the player had to make a choice before an attack. That's part of the reason why I almost never play front line fighter types.

One concern with "exchange" type models is that all options are not equal. So, for example, one might find many more "lose damage to gain BtH" exchanges than "lose BtH to gain damage" exchanges (although I suppose the latter might be handy for mob clearing)

Generically, BtH might be better than damage, but there are almost certain instances where you could spare a small attack penalty, but really need to do more damage to an enemy- especially when coupled with, say, Combat Dominance. Because you don't really need the BtH so much with lower enemies, but it might be nice to pretty much be CERTAIN that you drop them. An enemy mage might also have lowish AC, and you might want to make sure you wring every bit of damage you can each round.

The other thing is that maybe it's okay, if the options are not equal. Tactics aren't equal either. It's not perfect, but I tend to think the upside (tactical considerations becoming worthwhile for every attack) might outweigh the deficiencies. And the extra AC might come in handy in some situations too, especially if the Fighter isn't rocking the +1 plate mail.

EDIT- Just sort of had an idea about the exchange. If BtH is the precious resource here, they shouldn't be able to GAIN BtH. You have to substitute BtH for either extra damage (or AC), if you need an edge in a particular situation.

Aramis wrote:

KaiserKris wrote:
I still like the idea of exchanging the bonus tactically, though ... just a little trick that the Fighter has.

I agree. It is a tidy way to bring in some tactics without bringing in a system of feats and counter feats. I think the fighter would be improved if the player had to make a choice before an attack. That's part of the reason why I almost never play front line fighter types.

One concern with "exchange" type models is that all options are not equal. So, for example, one might find many more "lose damage to gain BtH" exchanges than "lose BtH to gain damage" exchanges (although I suppose the latter might be handy for mob clearing)

And here, I'm basically just trying to put forward my ideas in a more concrete form.

Fighter
Prime Attribute: Strength
Alignment: Any
Hit Dice: d10
Weapons: Any
Armor: Any
Abilities: Combat Flexibility, Weapon Specialization, Combat Dominance, Extra Attacks, Ascension Power*

Class Abilities:
Combat Flexibility: While Fighters are often dismissed as being simple brutes, the fact is that Fighters are often highly intelligent and subtle combat tacticians, who carefully weigh the relative merits of offense vs. defence, or raw power against calculated damage. At 1st level, a Fighter can trade up to 2 points of their Str bonus to BtH for either extra AC or extra damage. At 5th level, all restrictions are removed and they can freely use their entire Str bonus. This ability can be used freely, but its use must be announced to the CK.

Weapon Specialization: At 1st level, the Fighter specializes in one weapon, giving them a +1 bonus to hit and damage in that weapon. At 7th level, this bonus increases to +2, to +3 at 13th level, +4 at 19th level and +5 at 25th level.

Combat Dominance: At 4th level, the Fighter gains an extra attack against any weapon when dealing with opponents with 1 hit dice or less. To use this ability, the Fighter must direct all attacks in a combat round against these opponents. This ability stacks with Extra Attack. For example, a Fighter that normally gets 3/2 attacks, would instead receive 5/2 attacks- for a total of 2.5 attacks per round. At 8th level, the Fighter can use this ability on 2HD enemies, on 3 HD enemies at 12th level, 4 HD enemies at 16th level, 5 HD enemies at 20th level and 6 HD enemies at 24th level.

Extra Attacks: The Fighter receives extra attacks according to the following chart.
1-4th level: 2 attacks/2 rounds
5th-9th level: 3 attacks/2 rounds
10th-14th levels: 4 attacks/2 rounds
15th-19th level: 5 attacks/2 rounds.
20th-25th levels: 6 attacks/2 rounds.

Ascension Power: At 20th level, Fighters gain a permanent +1 bonus to their Strength, Constitution or Dexterity and receive a critical attack on rolls of 19 as well as 20.

*= This one is fairly setting-specific, with the understanding that 20th level characters are headed to demigod status.

Interesting. but not for my game.

Go0gleplex wrote:Interesting. but not for my game.

Too much crunch? Too powerful? It's all still a work in progress for me. If I were to reduce the power level a bit, I guess the place to start would be in keeping Combat Dominance to 1 HD mooks only, though at higher levels, I tend to think even the cannon fodder are going to become 3-4 HD creatures.

I actually like the Fighter Class to be simple, so it stays the perfect "starter" class for new players. That being said, I do tweak the class in 3 ways.

1. I allow Combat Dominance to affect 1HD creatures of any die type, including 1st level NPCs or PCs.

2. I grant a "Narrative Bonus" of +1 to-hit for fully describing your attack. So, if you just say "I attack", you roll the dice as normal. Say something like, "I feint, step left, and then stab at his throat", and you get a +1.

3. I allow Fighters to attempt "Special Attacks" as a class ability. Basically, if Fighters want to attempt anything unusual in combat (improvising weapons, cutting off limbs, or the sort of things that would be considered Feats under the SRD), they do so as a Class Ability. I don't give them a list of what they can do, but basically I let Fighters try almost anything that might possibly work. Other classes are not so versatile in combat, so they try such things as non-class abilities.

KaiserKris wrote:

Go0gleplex wrote:Interesting. but not for my game.

Too much crunch? Too powerful? It's all still a work in progress for me. If I were to reduce the power level a bit, I guess the place to start would be in keeping Combat Dominance to 1 HD mooks only, though at higher levels, I tend to think even the cannon fodder are going to become 3-4 HD creatures.

I just don't think there is anything wrong with the fighter class as is barring the Combat dominance which I do think should be any 1 HD critter.

1. I allow Combat Dominance to affect 1HD creatures of any die type,
this is confirmed in the Ir-rada (sic) as official now, FWIW.

I've heard a lot of people swap out combat dominance for Cleave from 3.5 and like it.
I'm a fan of class structure that's like, at level 4 choose one of blah blah or yadda yadda... at level 8 choose X or Y... so it's a focused short list of options, still architypical and simple, but options and flexibility so eveyr one isn't the same.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the fighter as written either, but understand the desire to make him a little more of a force in combat. If you do that, then you can make your encounters all the more challenging at higher levels. If I were to do something like that, I'd limit it so that you couldn't use all the attacks against the same opponent.

The new "cleaving strike" ability in the CKG allows for an additional attack against a foe of any HD when felling their current melee target and also stacks with combat dominance, so with this and many other new combat options that become available in the CKG there is help out there for those who feel the fighter is either underpowered or not distinct enough from the other warrior types.

I've been revisiting an old idea:

Rather than improving the number of attacks, increasing damage.

I have so far concluded:

1) All damage shall be dealt or healed in d6.

2) A fighter gains an additional die of damage at every level divisible by 4 (level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20).

3) Magical weapons with an enhancement bonus such as +1 or +3 deal additional dice of damage per "plus."

4) Making of magical weapons is strictly controlled based on level and Intelligence/Wisdom so that only the most powerful of casters could hope to make a +5 weapon.

5) Secondary bonuses, such as Strength or ability modifiers, are unaffected.

6) As in 5, magic attacks with a bonus to damage based on level (such as any that say XdY+Z / level) are also unaffected.

7) Some armor may reduce dice of damage taken; some monsters may have "damage reduction."

8) Monsters have HD x 1.5 for HP. No rolling.


None of this is played, but a thought exercise. I know there are problems inherent to this method and not everything is explained.

I guess I don't get the idea of the fighter being "underpowered," except from the standpoint that 3.x gave us tons of crunch for the fighter to entice more people to play it instead of one of the other melee types. The combination of BtH = CL with Combat Dominance is pretty huge. Heck, the BtH by itself is worthwhile enough. I'm trying to make my campaign one that would favor this by using lots more low HD monsters in encounters instead of the usual bigger monsters with higher levels trend. Yes, I'll put those big guys in too just to keep people interested, but I've really warmed up to the idea of using more low HD opponents, and giving them some measure of intelligence/tactical reasoning skills will make the encounters more of a danger factor.

Compare sheer volume.

20th level fighter vs. 50 kobolds. Fighter kills them in ~3 rounds as he cannot use extra attack with combat dominance.

15th level magic-user vs. 50 kobolds. Wizard kills them with 1 spell in 1 round. From a great distance away.

It is not a matter of "underpowered" as "under-utilized."

Personally, I think its quite simply awesome either way. Probably more so that the fighter can just wade in, despite being so vastly outnumbered, and walk away drenched in blood. The wizard simply yawns and flicks a finger, and boom... all dead. It comes down to what makes your ship sail.

I don't know if I think the Fighter is actually underpowered per se, though the Extra Attack bonus comes awfully late for it to count for much except in high-level games or long-running campaigns. I mean, part of it is a desire to see a few more tactical options for the fighter. I admit, though, that I've never played anything other than 3.5/Pathfinder or C&C itself, so maybe I'm just slowly weaning myself away from the boat of feats and skills and such ...

Fighters need more abilities outside of combat....

jaguar451 wrote:Fighters need more abilities outside of combat....

Hrmmm...the fighter tries to pick the lock. What do you mean that he fails the check? His warhammer is masterwork and is built for such things!

The fighter (who just so happens to be illiterate) takes a crack at deciphering the script on the scroll. Mmmm...pretty pictures...

The fighter follows the footprints through the street until he comes to another set that's the same size and shape going in a different direction than the path he's been following...which way to go?

The examples, while decidedly goofy, are all completely plausible under the SIEGE engine. Running a knight in John Wright's game at GaryCon I, the party lacked a rogue for the first half of the session. As the most heavily armored, the job fell to me. In one of the rare occasions where my 20-siders weren't cursed, I rolled like a fiend. Several natural 20s in a row, and I wound up finding one big trap in particular that could have caused a lot of problems. Bottom line, any class can try any of the abilities (except maybe spellcasting) thanks to the SIEGE engine. Was it bizarre and completely screwed up to have Sir Clankypants looking for traps? Yeah! Was it a blast hooking up the rope to trip the trap from a distance? You'd better believe it. If you want the fighter to do something unconventional in non-combat scenarios, why not give it a whirl and make it a part of the character's personality? Who knows...in the presence of an agreeable CK and enough tries to develop some measure of proficiency, you might even get to add your character level to the roll.

jaguar451 wrote:Fighters need more abilities outside of combat....

Bah! They're fighters! Why would they need to do anything outside of fighting?

It might be an interesting option, though, to let a fighter take one of the skill-oriented features of another class as an additional ability. Though outside of combat in particular, I think most stuff can also be left to SIEGE checks. I have very fond memories of a Fighter I played with an Intelligence prime. He wasn't optimized for TEH FIGHTING, but he proved to immensely valuable to the party as a whole. Where other people saw random carnage and burning, he could pretty much do a CSI analysis of the scene. He could also synthesize simple explosives, because he knew chemistry ... >:3

Yeah, I had a lot of fun with old Henrik.

KaiserKris wrote:

jaguar451 wrote:Fighters need more abilities outside of combat....

Bah! They're fighters! Why would they need to do anything outside of fighting?

It might be an interesting option, though, to let a fighter take one of the skill-oriented features of another class as an additional ability. Though outside of combat in particular, I think most stuff can also be left to SIEGE checks. I have very fond memories of a Fighter I played with an Intelligence prime. He wasn't optimized for TEH FIGHTING, but he proved to immensely valuable to the party as a whole. Where other people saw random carnage and burning, he could pretty much do a CSI analysis of the scene. He could also synthesize simple explosives, because he knew chemistry ... >:3

Yeah, I had a lot of fun with old Henrik.

That's awesome! I like the way you think. Can't wait to share a table with you somewhere along the line. That could be fun!

Sir Osis of Liver wrote:

KaiserKris wrote:

jaguar451 wrote:Fighters need more abilities outside of combat....

Bah! They're fighters! Why would they need to do anything outside of fighting?

It might be an interesting option, though, to let a fighter take one of the skill-oriented features of another class as an additional ability. Though outside of combat in particular, I think most stuff can also be left to SIEGE checks. I have very fond memories of a Fighter I played with an Intelligence prime. He wasn't optimized for TEH FIGHTING, but he proved to immensely valuable to the party as a whole. Where other people saw random carnage and burning, he could pretty much do a CSI analysis of the scene. He could also synthesize simple explosives, because he knew chemistry ... >:3

Yeah, I had a lot of fun with old Henrik.

That's awesome! I like the way you think. Can't wait to share a table with you somewhere along the line. That could be fun!

Well, thank you. As much as I like some of the crunchy bits (especially when it comes to combat), I fully agree that the heart and soul of C&C is the SIEGE check. And a fine heart and soul it is.

KaiserKris wrote:Well, thank you. As much as I like some of the crunchy bits (especially when it comes to combat), I fully agree that the heart and soul of C&C is the SIEGE check. And a fine heart and soul it is.

Don't get me wrong, the check itself is great, but for me, it's what the check allows you to do that defines the game. It's not about how many dice you can roll...it's about how far outside the box you can think to get through a situation that your first thought tells you, "There's no way I'm getting out of this one!" If you can throw a few dice, then so much the better. But you don't need to spend your time looking for exceptions to rules.

Bottom line, I'm largely agreeing with you. Less is more. Get the rules out of the way to turn the imagination loose. That's what the SIEGE engine allows you to do, and that is, as I see it, the heart and soul of the game. If you have a healthy imagination, you don't need crunch to let you prove what a brilliant tactician you are.

KaiserKris wrote:I have very fond memories of a Fighter I played with an Intelligence prime. He wasn't optimized for TEH FIGHTING, but he proved to immensely valuable to the party as a whole.

This had me thinking about an AD&D elven fighter I played years ago. Dexterity was his defining characteristic, and charisma and wisdom were considered much more important by his peers than strength (and indeed strength was his fourth highest stat). If I were converting him to C&C, dex would be an obvious prime, and then I'd try to talk the CK into letting me go with wisdom instead of strength.

Would any of you consider allowing a fighter without strength as prime?

Just Jeff wrote:

KaiserKris wrote:I have very fond memories of a Fighter I played with an Intelligence prime. He wasn't optimized for TEH FIGHTING, but he proved to immensely valuable to the party as a whole.

This had me thinking about an AD&D elven fighter I played years ago. Dexterity was his defining characteristic, and charisma and wisdom were considered much more important by his peers than strength (and indeed strength was his fourth highest stat). If I were converting him to C&C, dex would be an obvious prime, and then I'd try to talk the CK into letting me go with wisdom instead of strength.

Would any of you consider allowing a fighter without strength as prime?

Absolutely. I don't consider Strength to be quite as defining of a Fighter as, say, Charisma is for the Paladin or Intelligence for the Wizard. I would require that a Fighter have a physical stat as a Prime, but Dexterity would do nicely as well. I'd allow such a character to use their Dex mod to hit with a lighter weapon like a rapier as well, and I'd probably *require* them to have a Dex mod before allowing them to use two-weapon fighting.

Some general comments on this thread. If you want your fighter to have skills other than fighting, consider the primes you pick for the class.

An intelligence prime. Tactics, understanding siege engine and castle construction, knowledge of the military protocol of various cultures, heraldry and social ranking. Knowledge of weapons of various cultures. Military history.

Charisma prime. Leadership abilities. Diplomacy.

Wisdom prime. Philosophy as regards to war. (The Book of 5 Rings comes to mind). Psychological warfare.

The above is good for the ability scores one wouldn't normally consider.

Generally, the dex and con aspects are part and parcel of fighting. Balance, endurance, fitness.