Fighter = Combat Dominance / Extra Attack

[Greyblade]

I'm a bit unhappy about the Fighter as described in the core rules. Basically, I find him pretty weak compared to the other classes, and I know my player who chose the class does too.

I'm not satisfied with Combat Dominance (seriously, 1HD opponents when you're level 4+, what's the point?), and I'd like to alter it a bit, to make it a more viable option in higher levels. However, if I discard the 1HD restriction, it basically makes it more or less an exact copy of Extra Attack.

So, how would you spice up/have you spiced up the Fighter? I know some folks added Cleave.
Other ideas?

[serleran]

A simple solution is to go the ranger route...

At 4th level, the fighter gains a damage modifier equal of half his level (+2) against opponents of 1 HD or less.

At 6th level, this bonus increases to +3 and the affected HD limit increases by 1.

At 8th level, the bonus adjusts to +4 and now applies against 3-HD opponents.

At 10th level, the bonus increases to +5 and functions against 4 HD enemies.

At 12th level, the damage award becomes +6 and works on 5 HD enemies.

This is considerably more, and less, powerful than a ranger.

There are, naturally, countless other options. What matters is if you want more "standard attacks" which may mean more overall damage, more damage (without additional attacks, necessarily), or some other cinematic thing.

In one game I ran, I had the fighter instantly kill any 1 HD enemy if he was 4th level, then at 8th he could slaughter 2 HD, and so forth. Essentially a mook-machine.

[Treebore]

Fighters:
They get to use their BtH to make combat related SIEGE checks, plus their specialization bonuses when using that weapon. All other classes use just their BtH.

Fighters can also learn to master (specialize) a new weapon every 3 levels. So at 4th, 7th, 10th, and so on they can master a new weapon. They only get the +1 to hit and damage. These additional weapons never increase to +2 like your first weapon does. Unless you use one of your additional "mastery's" to do so. So if you want to be +2 with the bow, you can use your 4th and 7th level mastery to do so. To be clear, the 7th level bonus can only be used to up your fist chosen weapon to +2, or you keep it at +1 and chose a different weapon to have a +1. You do not increase your first weapon to +2 and pick an additional weapon to +1, you do not get both.

Combat Dominance is now "Mass Combat Dominance". They get multiple attacks per round whenever the Fighter is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time. Regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks.

SIEGE Checks:

As you probably guessed, I allow SIEGE checks to be used for a lot of things other than skills. They can be used by fighters to try and get extra attacks, to get an extra attack when you take an opponent down, to transfer points from your BtH to your damage roll, if you think of it, ask me if you can do it. If you have played 3E many of their feats are good ideas for SIEGE checks.

IMPORTANT: If you successfully use a SIEGE check frequently enough to perform a specific kind of action I will eventually, when I decide to do so, award it as a "signature move". This will mean that as long as your opponent is no more than 3 levels higher than you, or lower, you will not need to perform a SIEGE check to do the "signature move". You can have as many "signature moves" as I decide to award you with.

[Treebore]

For my Mass Combat Dominance, I just recall those pictures of Conan surrounded by dozens of enemies, cutting them down. That is what I went for, and that is what I got.

[Greyblade]

Doesn't that make Extra Attack irrelevant then Treebore?

[Arduin]

My rule is: Combat Dominance works if the opponent is at least 4HD less than the fighter. So a 12th level Fighter could attack three 8 HD creatures in one round.

[Omote]

Throw 20 kobolds at a 4th level fighter and see if Combat Dominance is as useless as you think. I think CKs in C&C do not utilize combat in this way any more when higher level parties come upon large groups of low-power enemies.

~O

[Rigon]

Here are my changes to the fighter:

Fighter: As the PHB, with the following changes/additions:
Weapon Specialization: At first level, the fighter selects one weapon group to become an expert with. The fighter gains a +1 to hit and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 every 6 levels thereafter (+2 at 7th, +3 at 13th, etc) to a total bonus of +5. At 7th level, the fighter can select a second group of weapons to specialize in for a +1 to hit and damage. This second group’s bonus to hit and damage increases by +1 every 6 levels thereafter to a maximum of +3 at 19th level. At 13th level, the fighter can select a 3rd weapon group at +1 to hit and damage. This group's bonus never increases.
The following weapon groups may be selected:
Axes: battle axe, bearded axe, hand/throwing axe, piercing axe, 2-handed axe, hatchet
Bows: longbow, short bow, comp longbow, comp short bow
Clubs: club, light mace, heavy mace, morningstar, godentag
Crossbows: light crossbow, heavy crossbow, hand crossbow
Flails: sap, light flail, heavy flail
Hammers: light hammer, war hammer, maul
Heavy Polearms: bardiche, glaive, glaive guisarme, guisarme, halberd, lucerne hammer, pike, ranseur
Lances: light lance, heavy lance
Large Blades: 2-handed sword, bastard sword, falchion, great scimitar, flamberge
Light Polearms: bec de corbin, bill or billhook, fauchard, fauchard fork, military fork, partisan, voulge
Long Blades: broad sword, long sword, scimitar, nine ring broad sword
Picks: light pick, heavy pick, crowbill
Punching Weapons: brass knuckles, cestus, katar
Reaping Weapons: scythe, sickle, hafted hook
Short Blades: short sword, rapier, tulwar, hook sword, flatchet
Small Blades: knife, cleaver, dagger, dirk, main gauche, poniard
Spears: spear, long spear, wolf spear, staff, trident, man catcher, sleeve tangler
Throwing Weapons: harpoon, javelin, aclis, dart, slings, bolas
Whips: cat-o-nine-tails, whip
Cleave: If the fighter slays his opponent, he may make an immediate attack against another opponent that is within 5 ft of his original target.
Combat Dominance: The fighter gets multiple attacks per round whenever he is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time, regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks, however it does stack with Cleave.

R-

[Treebore]

Doesn't that make Extra Attack irrelevant then Treebore?

No, its still good when you fight one or two opponents at a time. My Mass Combat Dominance doesn't kick in until they are fighting 3 or more at one time.

[Greyblade]

Rigon,

We'll try your fighter rules in our upcoming game, I'll let you know how it goes and how the players (2 of them) feel about the new, improved class powers.

It's gonna be a slaughter of monsters/NPCs I think!

[Rigon]

Rigon,

We'll try your fighter rules in our upcoming game, I'll let you know how it goes and how the players (2 of them) feel about the new, improved class powers.

It's gonna be a slaughter of monsters/NPCs I think!

Great, let me know how they work for game. They have worked out great in my games. Fighters are devastating against hordes.

R-

[jdizzy001]

Firstly, I award combat dominance as written and award cleave at the same time so they have the benefits of both. You can also award the fighter a few advantages. The ckg has a good list of combat advantages

[Captain_K]

Does anyone smooth out the fighter's attacks per round? Rather than the all mighty jump from 1 to 2 at tenth, do like in the old school 3/2 at "the half way point? Say 5th or 6th lvl. We do and the fighters love that.. likely they'll never see 10th lvl so we really like that minor tweak.

[Rigon]

Does anyone smooth out the fighter's attacks per round? Rather than the all mighty jump from 1 to 2 at tenth, do like in the old school 3/2 at "the half way point? Say 5th or 6th lvl. We do and the fighters love that.. likely they'll never see 10th lvl so we really like that minor tweak.

I did originally, but we often forgot about the extra attack in the odd rounds, so I switched it to 2 attacks earlier. I also gave other fighter types 2 attacks a round but later than the fighter and the fighter caps out at 3 attacks per round with their specialized weapon.

R-

[Treebore]

In my game they get it whenever they do enough successful SIEGE rolls (for an extra attack) to earn it.

[AndyMac]

First off, I don't agree with the Op's assertion that Fighters are sub-standard when compared to other classes. With that said, one thing that I allow is additional combat maneuvers. Everyone can use these after they have a +1 BtH, but Fighters get the added benefit of being able to use more than one in a round unless the maneuver prohibits this. From my house rules document:

"For clarity, common nomenclature is different in C&C for what constitutes a combat maneuver. Grappling, Overbearing and Pummeling are all part of “unarmed combat” and are not considered combat maneuvers.

Only fighters can use more than one combat maneuver in the same round unless prohibited by the maneuver.

• Dodge, Disengage, Disarm, Evade, Flank Attack and Rear Attack work as is written in the PHB.
• Power Attack: A character with at least a +1 BtH can choose to forgo accuracy in melee to gain power. The character takes a -1 to hit and gains a +2 to damage. If the character is using a two-handed weapon, the damage bonus is +3.
• Weapon Finesse: A character with at least a +1 BtH can choose to use their dexterity bonus to hit in melee instead of their strength bonus. Their strength bonus still applies to damage. They must be fighting with one of the following weapons: dagger, dirk, flatchet, knife, poniard, rapier, scimitar or short sword.
• Deadly Aim: A character using a ranged weapon and with at least a +1 BtH can choose to aim at a more sensitive area that is harder to hit. The character takes a -1 to hit and gains a +2 to damage. If the character is using a hurled weapon, the damage bonus is +3.
• Combat Expertise: A character with at least a +1 BtH and a 13 INT or intelligence as a prime can sacrifice offensive accuracy for armor class. The character gets a -2 adjustment to hit but gains +2 to AC."

Maybe some of these could help if you only allowed fighters to use them. I don't recommend that, but perhaps it will help.

The only rule here is to do what you think is fun!

[Greyblade]

Good ideas AndyMac

Thanks

[Captain_K]

I have to agree, I think fighters do there thing very well. Usually they are focused on hitting and killing things and the specialization and stat focus on scores that help them with no need to worry about scores in other areas for other things makes them good "killers".

That said, they're low on "fun things" and abilities and that "oh look, I can do something you cannot".

I like letting them do the fighting techniques better too. Not sure in detail how yet, but fighters should do combat maneuvers "well" or "better than most" since that's their area.

[Treebore]

I've played Knights, Paladins, Fighters, and Rangers. They are not equal, and of them all Fighters suck. Do Fighters get to add CHA modifiers to their allies? Nope. Do they get to add +4 to saves versus fear to everyone within 10 feet, and be immune to fear themselves? Nope. Do they get to add their level to damage versus a wide variety of enemies, and other benefits? Nope. What do they get? BtH equal to their level, and weapon specialization, and Combat Dominance that soon become next to worthless. Woohoo!

Fighters should be the most dominant SINGLE melee force on the battlefield, just like the Mage is the SINGLE most dominant magical force, and things like my Mass Combat Dominance and what Rigon does, etc... addresses this.

Again, this is all controlled by a given CK's personal preferences for their own games, sense of class "balance" and so on, but to say the Fighter class is on par, let alone superior to, the other fighter types is not a statement I will ever agree with. As its written in the PHB. So this is just something we will have to agree to disagree on.

[Captain_K]

I like fighters and I especially like fighters for new players because they're simple.

Simple QUESTION, NOT an ATTACK, do you think even at 10th lvl, when they get two attacks per round, which no one else gets, they're still below Rangers and Paladins in simple melee damage they can deal? I'm going to have to run some numbers to check the math on this one.

But I totally agree the as written class is "ability lite", OK "ability missing". I also agree combat dominance is kind of weak. But specialization rocks, so does multiple attacks.

OK, I'm in both camps. But I still like fighters, but now that I think about it, I have not played one personally in a long while because I love special abilities... aka my favorite is still Monk-Assassin (Class and a half), love me my over skilled Ninja!

[Captain_K]

As you can see not only does the fighter hit more often (10% to 15%) more often, but it "always" does more damage. Even when the Ranger and Paladin limited special cases kick in they will not win due to the 15% less frequent hits scored. This was a quick write up, feel free to challenge my numbers, but I think they're right and reasonable.

Now yes, the other abilities round out the Ranger and give all sorts of bonuses to saves for the Paladin plus two to AC, but in terms of swinging the sword and always doing damage to anything, well the fighter clearly wins and not by a little.

So I'm still in both camps. Fighters are OK, kind of boring, but if you like killing things, then this "simple" class might be for you. Having said all this....

Watch for the Doomsday coming your way soon (I hope) and I have a slight mod to the fighter class (if Tree thinks its the kind of thing to put into the Doomsday) and you'll get my take on the Fighter - Combat Master. If he or the Trolls reject it outright then I'll post it here. But I spent time making it look nice and I'd like it to get its shot in the Doomsday.

See there I go again, stuck in BOTH camps!

[AndyMac]

I've played Knights, Paladins, Fighters, and Rangers. They are not equal, and of them all Fighters suck. Do Fighters get to add CHA modifiers to their allies? Nope. Do they get to add +4 to saves versus fear to everyone within 10 feet, and be immune to fear themselves? Nope. Do they get to add their level to damage versus a wide variety of enemies, and other benefits? Nope. What do they get? BtH equal to their level, and weapon specialization, and Combat Dominance that soon become next to worthless. Woohoo!

Fighters should be the most dominant SINGLE melee force on the battlefield, just like the Mage is the SINGLE most dominant magical force, and things like my Mass Combat Dominance and what Rigon does, etc... addresses this.

Again, this is all controlled by a given CK's personal preferences for their own games, sense of class "balance" and so on, but to say the Fighter class is on par, let alone superior to, the other fighter types is not a statement I will ever agree with. As its written in the PHB. So this is just something we will have to agree to disagree on.

It's funny that we have such opposite views on this. As a CK, I can tell you that the "as written" fighter IS the single most dominant force on the battlefield in general. So much so, that I gave paladins a "weapon of choice" (similar to specialization but only +1/+1) at third level and rangers a bonus to two-weapon fighting or archery (their choice) at third level to balance things. Knights get to add their level to damage from hits with a lance while mounted and charging.

I've always found that analyzing things in a vacuum is hard, particularly when those things normally function in a group. The fighters in my games have always been better in general at fighting than everybody. There are instances when the knight, the paladin and ranger have been better, but the fighter is not useless at these times either. The other members of the party can enhance this with good playing or not. My experiences have led me to go the opposite way from Treebore and Rigon. I've adjusted the other classes to balance things out.

Is this a question of expectations? Or personal preference? I ask because my experiences are so different. How much more dominant than the other classes are fighters expected to be? As a matter of preference, I don't play fighters (unless multi-classed). But I think the knight and the wizard are the most fun to play followed by rangers and clerics or druids. But that is my preference. I guess we must agree to disagree.

As long as it is fun, I say go for it.

[jdizzy001]

Does anyone smooth out the fighter's attacks per round? Rather than the all mighty jump from 1 to 2 at tenth, do like in the old school 3/2 at "the half way point? Say 5th or 6th lvl. We do and the fighters love that.. likely they'll never see 10th lvl so we really like that minor tweak.

I did originally, but we often forgot about the extra attack in the odd rounds, so I switched it to 2 attacks earlier. I also gave other fighter types 2 attacks a round but later than the fighter and the fighter caps out at 3 attacks per round with their specialized weapon.

R-

This seems very effective. How does three attacks work when compared to the other classes? Is it too over the top? I have considered giving fighters their extra attack in lieu of CD, but a third attack seems over the top.

[Captain_K]

See table below.. a table that goes with my house ruled fighter...

[Captain_K]

Basically weapon progression should be smooth the CKG gives ideas for more attacks at higher levels. I like letting the fighter apply their specialization to more weapons and then similar to Rigon allow similar weapons to get some bonus. Then I add in the chance to improve their combat maneuvers too.

[Rigon]

Does anyone smooth out the fighter's attacks per round? Rather than the all mighty jump from 1 to 2 at tenth, do like in the old school 3/2 at "the half way point? Say 5th or 6th lvl. We do and the fighters love that.. likely they'll never see 10th lvl so we really like that minor tweak.

I did originally, but we often forgot about the extra attack in the odd rounds, so I switched it to 2 attacks earlier. I also gave other fighter types 2 attacks a round but later than the fighter and the fighter caps out at 3 attacks per round with their specialized weapon.

R-

This seems very effective. How does three attacks work when compared to the other classes? Is it too over the top? I have considered giving fighters their extra attack in lieu of CD, but a third attack seems over the top.

I haven't run a game to that level yet. I usually end campaigns around 7th-8th level. I would assume 3 attacks would work out fine, as the fighter is the only one who can get that many attacks.

R-

[Treebore]

I've played Knights, Paladins, Fighters, and Rangers. They are not equal, and of them all Fighters suck. Do Fighters get to add CHA modifiers to their allies? Nope. Do they get to add +4 to saves versus fear to everyone within 10 feet, and be immune to fear themselves? Nope. Do they get to add their level to damage versus a wide variety of enemies, and other benefits? Nope. What do they get? BtH equal to their level, and weapon specialization, and Combat Dominance that soon become next to worthless. Woohoo!

Fighters should be the most dominant SINGLE melee force on the battlefield, just like the Mage is the SINGLE most dominant magical force, and things like my Mass Combat Dominance and what Rigon does, etc... addresses this.

Again, this is all controlled by a given CK's personal preferences for their own games, sense of class "balance" and so on, but to say the Fighter class is on par, let alone superior to, the other fighter types is not a statement I will ever agree with. As its written in the PHB. So this is just something we will have to agree to disagree on.

It's funny that we have such opposite views on this. As a CK, I can tell you that the "as written" fighter IS the single most dominant force on the battlefield in general. So much so, that I gave paladins a "weapon of choice" (similar to specialization but only +1/+1) at third level and rangers a bonus to two-weapon fighting or archery (their choice) at third level to balance things. Knights get to add their level to damage from hits with a lance while mounted and charging.

I've always found that analyzing things in a vacuum is hard, particularly when those things normally function in a group. The fighters in my games have always been better in general at fighting than everybody. There are instances when the knight, the paladin and ranger have been better, but the fighter is not useless at these times either. The other members of the party can enhance this with good playing or not. My experiences have led me to go the opposite way from Treebore and Rigon. I've adjusted the other classes to balance things out.

Is this a question of expectations? Or personal preference? I ask because my experiences are so different. How much more dominant than the other classes are fighters expected to be? As a matter of preference, I don't play fighters (unless multi-classed). But I think the knight and the wizard are the most fun to play followed by rangers and clerics or druids. But that is my preference. I guess we must agree to disagree.

As long as it is fun, I say go for it.

Like I we have now both said, we will have to agree to disagree. Like I have said, I have played every single class at one time or another, up to at least 8th level, in C&C, and pretty much every edition of D&D from 1st through 3rd edition. In C&C the Fighter tends to deal out the most damage and hit the most often with the weapon of SPECIALIZATION. If they are unable to use that weapon, they are not much better than any other fighter type in combat. A Knight is only 3 points of BtH behind a Fighter, which is using its weapon of specialization, assuming all else is equal, and 2 points of damage. Take away the Fighters weapon of specialization and hey are only 1 point of BtH better. What can the Knight do? A LOT. Such as a +1 or higher to EVERY allies BtH for longer and longer periods of time. Put a Knight on a field of battle while mounted on a horse, with a heavy lance, and they become a highly mobile, high damage dealing, death machine. Then they get another power, then another, and soon they dominate any field of battle, and the larger the number of combatants, the more powerful they are, because the more allies they have to add their powers to.

The Paladin. I have played LOTS of Paladins over the years. Sure, they don't hit as often as a Fighter, and tend to not deal out as much damage as a Fighter, but they are frikking tanks, especially against evil, with their +2 to AC and saves, immunity to diseases, immunity to fear at 6th level, and so on. They are the guy who can reliably hold any line, while their allies, pull back, heal, etc...

Give them a Holy Avenger, and even spell casters will be afraid, as well they should.

Then think about the Ranger, the Bard and the Barbarian. They get all these cool abilities, and what do they give up? Heavy armors and up to 3 points of BtH and 2 points of Damage, if your not a Ranger. The Ranger. OMG, the Ranger. Against any of their enemies, giants, ogres, orcs, etc... they get to add their level in Damage, and once they get to select favored enemies....

So I've always thought, "Why doesn't the fighter get any cool battle field dominating abilities? Why just a couple of bonus points to BtH and damage, and ONLY with their specialized weapon? Shouldn't they be the ones mowing down enemies left and right, regardless of what HD they have?"

Hence, my Mass Combat Dominance was born, which actually goes all the way back to the original Fighter in OD&D.

Rigons rules address the severely limited weapon specialization of the Fighter. Of all the fighter types, shouldn't a fighter be the master of more than one or two weapons? For those who think they should be the master of more than one or two weapons, Rigons rules spread it out a little bit more. Personally, I've been leaning towards letting Fighters being the master of any weapon they pick up, and giving them the specialization bonus across the board. Again, why limit them to just one weapon? Why even worry about them being specialized in more than one weapon? Why not let them be masters of any weapon? After all, they still only have two hands, and unless your going to be destroying, stealing, etc... their weapon of Specialization all the time, they are going to ALWAYS use their weapon of Specialization anyways, unless they get a magical weapon with a bonus high enough to make it better to use than their specialized weapon.

So why limit it? Why not let them be the master of ANY weapon they pick up? If they want to forgo a shield and use a two handed weapon, let them.

Anyways, thats been the thoughts I have had as a result of my experiences, which in turn led to my having the rules I do.

[Captain_K]

OK, My camp stool is getting closer to your fire. I tend to agree. Now that you don't need scores to be these other classes and he harder exp pt don't matter all that much, I think it would be nice if the fighter gets a bit of that sort of stuff. Thus the house rules of which I'm pretty sure I snitch Rigon's house rule for weapons in the same family as your specialization get a pretty good bonus too.

Tree, Why not get together various folks handling of improvements to fighters and put the top three in the Doomsday, if that's allow or where you're going with the mag?

[Treebore]

OK, My camp stool is getting closer to your fire. I tend to agree. Now that you don't need scores to be these other classes and he harder exp pt don't matter all that much, I think it would be nice if the fighter gets a bit of that sort of stuff. Thus the house rules of which I'm pretty sure I snitch Rigon's house rule for weapons in the same family as your specialization get a pretty good bonus too.

Tree, Why not get together various folks handling of improvements to fighters and put the top three in the Doomsday, if that's allow or where you're going with the mag?

The mag is what gets submitted to it. So far its a bit of everything

[jdizzy001]

The more i think about it, the i like andy mac's idea of fighter maneuvers being more effective. Low and behold, i found it in the epic character rules too. With that in mind, does anyone actually use the maneuvers?