Based on the FIGHTER???

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:39 pm

Ok, I have heard that all classes were based on how the fighter was designed.

Makes sense to me.

But looking at the PHB and hearing feedback from others, the fighter is the last class in C&C I would like to play.

What are others experience with this class?

Have you found it competitive as written compared to the other classes?

What if anything have you done to beef up the fighter?

Like the bard in 'that other game' I find the C&C fighter one of those that folks find ok in theory, yet they will always steer towards anything but.

Thoughts?

PS: If this is one of those questions, by all means refer me to another thread.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:53 pm

Well, first let me say that there is not a single class that I have left unscathed with modifications.

That being said, there is much talk of what cant be done with the fighter.

This is what I came up with:

A characters base roll to accomplish something is at a base 18 (think of it as an armour class one has to beat). A prime attribute gives a +6 bonus to that roll. This, coupled with the attribute modifier and a characters level gives a baseline for a variety of abstractly defined skills a fighter can have.

Take for an example a fighter who's put their Prime scores in Intelligence and Charisma. Following this supposition this fighter has grown up in an environment that enables familiarity with a military background.

Several broad areas of skill I can think off right off the bat for this fighter, based on intelligence and charisma (The primes of which represent training in said areas) would be: Engneering (the ability to design and oversee the construction of all manner of military based equipment, this can also be extrapolated to include some sort of artistic ability. Drawing, rendering, sculpture modeling and so forth.) (int) Logistics (int), Siege warfare (sapping and so forth) (int) Leadership (cha), military protocol(name ranks and hierarchy) (cha), Intimidation (cha)

In short, a number of abilities for an aspiring officer or, at basic, a mercenary sergeant type.

All of which one could, with the cooperation of the game master, legitimately add level too.

The same can be done for all the classes simply by logically assuming skills based on a combination of background and class baseline.

A fighter with Con and Dex Prime might have grown up with a blacksmith and therein have a number of manual dexterity craft and endurance skills to go along with it. Just another example.

Now, above and beyond that, have I changed anything in the base class? Yes. I gave them extra attacks at 7th level 10th level and 13th level. I also do various things with weapons groups and additional specializations via a mix of ideas from Mentzer basic to 2e AD&D. Not because the C&C rules are inconsistent in of themselves, but because I have always done things a certain way and I'm not inclined to change without good reason. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Post by **Fiffergrund** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:00 am

Peter covered the variants well, so I'll cover whether I think the fighter as written is good enough to be viable.

The answer is a resounding yes. He may not be flashy, but he is effective. He's the deadliest in combat, bar none. Other classes may come close, but they never reach the all-around combat effectiveness of the fighter.

Part of the "bland" perception is that many of us are used to bells and whistles. For C&C, the fighter was created to be the best at its core, not because of bells and whistles. It was decided that add-ons were best left to individual games.

They aren't needed, though. Some prefer them to flesh things out more, but by the numbers, fighters are just ducky.

(No other class gets specialization, no other class starts with +1 BtH, and no other class gets multiple attacks.)
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

johns · Post by **johns** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:04 am

The fighter's also a great class if one uses something like the "called shot" system in AD&D2 - i.e. you can do special attacks, but suffer a penalty to hit when doing so. Since the fighter is naturally better than others at hitting, the associated penalties for making special attacks are less of an obstacle, giving the fighter a tactical advantage in combat. The fighter is one of my favorite classes for this reason.

Oh, and something that recently occurred to me ... you can allow your fighters, if they wish, to specialize in combat maneuver. A fighter could specialize in two-weapon fighting or grappling, gaining the normal bonus (+1 at 1st, +2 at 7th) when using that combat maneuver.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:20 am

Oh ya.. I also switched Weapon Spec and Combat dominance around. No one ever did give me a sensible answer as to why they were put in the order they were, so I fixed it.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:31 am

My fighter rocks! But it helps that he has a +3 STR bonus and is a minotaur.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:43 am

I allow Fighters to attack 3/2 at Levels 1-6, 2/1 at Levels 7-12, 5/2 at Levels 13-18 and 3/1 at Levels 19-24. I generally ignore Combat Dominance as the trade off.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:03 am

I think the fighter's desirability hinges largely on the campaign type. In a campaign where the party faces a large number of humanoids and giants (al la RotR) a ranger will greatly outshine a fighter of equal level and str due to a far less randomized damage range.

However, in other campaign types a fighter's damage will outshine that of a ranger. So, it all depends on circumstance.

Sure the ranger makes the fighter look like a punk as they slaughter their way through the valley of ogres, but as the red dragon descends from the ledge above....its the fighter' time to shine.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:09 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
Sure the ranger makes the fighter look like a punk as they slaughter their way through the valley of ogres, but as the red dragon descends from the ledge above....its the fighter' time to shine.

Well.. glow white hot at least from the breath weapon.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:13 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well.. glow white hot at least from the breath weapon.

Which allows the ranger to beat a hasty retreat....

Damn. Why play a fighter again?

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:51 am

Treebore wrote:
My fighter rocks! But it helps that he has a +3 STR bonus and is a minotaur.

Yeah, I have to kill that guy.

Seriously, I've played a couple of fighters in verious games and NO OTHER class has come close to matching the fighter at what he does best.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:15 am

I do think the fighter needs some adjustments though. Prior to level 10 they get only 1 attack per round making the ranger a pretty tempting choice instead.

Look at an 8th level fighter and 8th level ranger both with 16 strength and a +1 longsword.

Fighter to hit: +13

Damage: 1d8 + 5

Damage range (6-13)

Ranger to hit: +10

Damage: 1d8 +3 or 1d8+11 (vs humanoids)

Damage range: (4-11) or (12-19)

So, the fighter has a greater chance to hit and does a little more damage against your average foe than the ranger does, but when fighting against humanoids (and they are pretty common) the ranger's combat effectiveness goes up tremendously.

In most games I run, the ranger would definitely be advantaged.

Once the fighter hits level 10 and gets the 2nd attacks, he outshines the ranger in combat against non-humanoid but still lags behind in the humanoids department (although much less than before).

Sure, fighter can wear "any armor" BUT the AC difference between a fighter's best armor and a ranger's best armor is only 2 points.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:20 am

I should have added this to my earlier post; I changed the fighter a bit. Here is how I handle them in my games:

Weapon Specialization: At first level the fighter selects one weapon to become an expert with. The fighter gains the following benefits:

1st level: +1 to attack and damage rolls; 1 attack per round

5th level: +2 to attack and damage rolls; 3 attacks per 2 rounds

10th level: +3 to attack and damage rolls; 2 attacks per round

15th level: +4 to attack and damage rolls; 5 attacks per 2 rounds

20th level: +5 to attack and damage rolls; 3 attacks per round

Extra Attacks: As the fighter gains in levels, he becomes more proficient with other weapons and gains additional attacks each round as follows:

1st level: 1 attack per round

7th level: 3 attacks per 2 rounds

13th level: 2 attacks per round

Combat Dominance: Beginning at 2nd level, the fighter gains a tactical advantage over lesser foes. The fighter can make an extra attack against foes with the fighter's Hit Dice. (ex. A 2nd level fighter can make an extra attack against 1 hit die creatures. Upon reaching 4th level, the fighter can make an extra attack against 2 hit dice creatures.) The fighter gains an 2nd extra attack at 8th level and a 3rd extra attack at 16th level.
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:37 am

Yeah, I think I've seen more house rules for the fighter than I have any other class. Enough so that I think it is a class that deserves a second look and maybe a tweak or two.

In my current campaign, if I were still playing C&C (I reverted back to 2nd Edition ) the ranger would be the more effective fighting class in at least 70% of the encounters.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:18 pm

I like fighters the way they are. Better armor (even if it's 'just' 10% better) makes a big difference to me when I'm the one getting attacked.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Tank · Post by **Tank** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:37 pm

Joe wrote:
But looking at the PHB and hearing feedback from others, the fighter is the last class in C&C I would like to play.

What are others experience with this class?

Have you found it competitive as written compared to the other classes?

What if anything have you done to beef up the fighter?

I'm DMing a 4th-ish level party including an illusionist, a magic-user, a thief, a cleric, and a fighter, and the fighter is incredibly effective in combat. Without a doubt, he is the main damage dealer of the party. A typical combat looks goes something like this:
Thief gets wind of the enemy, party sets up ambush.
Color spray and Sleep spells away!

Fighter kills everyone standing while cleric protects the rest of the boys.

High fives all around.
It might help that his specialized weapon is a +1 bearded axe, so he deals 7-16 damage per hit with a +8 to hit rolls. And that lucky son-of-a-gun rolled four natural twenties over the course of this week's game (houserule: double damage), on the fourth killing the Ape Shaman High Priest in a single blow.

By the way, the player and I recently agreed to swap out combat dominance for a cleave attack that he wouldn't need to make a SIEGE check for. We didn't think he was underpowered as written; we just thought it'd be more fun that way.

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:41 pm

Seems like extra attacks is common for several people. I like the half-attack method; it's less of a shock in the class progression.

I also give more weapon specializations at higher levels. either they improve one they or gain a new weapon. Kind of like a simple weapon mastery system.

I also like Combat Senses (per the barbarian) as a good addition. I mean, he's the melee expert, he'd know what's going on around him.

-Fizz

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:43 pm

But back to the question- i don't think fighters are softies at all. Every edition of AD&D (even 3E) has accused the fighter of being dull. They do what their name implies, and do it better than anyone else. The details that make them unique can be left to roleplaying. Mechanically, they're quite sound.

-Fizz

simontmn · Post by **simontmn** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:47 pm

When I wanted to play a barbarian type character in a Wilderlands game. I went through the classes looking for a suitable class. The actual barbarian class looked hopeless; good hit points but otherwise its Primal Fury was unusable, it was just a weak Fighter. The Fighter stood out - his to-hit is +2 over any other class, going to +3 later. Damage +1 going to +2. Combat Dominance is 'meh', but Fighters are the ONLY class to get multiple attacks. For dungeon hacking they are the best class at any level, and definitely my favourite.

Edit: I do replace CD with Cleave in my own games, though.

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:48 pm

The fighter isnt so bad but is not the most desirable class to play at a glance. None of the classes stand as they are IMC, however, so it's not a big deal. My campaign has a heavy focus on factions, and when the PCs receive training in a factions style of combat they receive permanent bonuses and/or changes to the structure of their class abilities.

Kos · Post by **Kos** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:11 am

Really?! I liked the fighter right away, the rules give it an equal footing with the other fighting classes that had been missing in AD&D. The thing about the fighter for me is the wide variety of characters one can roleplay into it. Will your fighter be a hardened footsoldier, wandering sword master, bloodthirsty bandit, or jungle warrior raised by animals. I know I may be a minority but I can think of a number of fighters that would be fun to play regardless of rules balance. I think any good CK will throw a house rule to a character he thinks is getting shafted. As long as everybody's having fun I don't think about house rules that much.

nittanytbone14 · Post by **nittanytbone14** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:25 am

I think the fighter is fine as is.

By the mid levels the fighter has +3 to hit compared to any other class, and +2 damage.

Sure, a 7th level ranger picks up 5 extra points of damage vs. some foes compared to the fighter. But the fighter gets his bonus damage vs. all foes. The barbarian -- even with a tweaked Primal Fury -- can match the fighter's damage output, but only for a few rounds per day.

Furthermore, the fighter has superior AC, meaning he gets hit about 15% less often than your rangers or barbarians.

Combat Dominance may seem a bit weak, but consider how hard it is to grab extra attacks in C&C. Whacking goblins, rats, men-at-arms, etc is quite handy, especially because it keeps the magic user from wasting spells on what might be relatively easy encounters. A fighter can quickly clean up a squad of half a dozen goblins -- sure, the ranger will splatter them like paste across the back wall with ease, but it'll still take him rounds to off them all.
For consistent, go-all-day melee punishment, you can't beat the fighter.

Plus, with primes in play, you can easily customize any class. A fighter with STR and CHA prime might be the likeable sergeant that always stands fast in the face of fear. He's not high-and-mightly like a knight but he's still gruff but likeable! Likewise, a fighter with INT prime might be a siege engineer. With a CK that's willing to work with you a bit and allow the fighter to add his level to appropriate checks you're good to go.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:13 am

Love playing fighters. Always have.
_________________
History teaches us that men behave wisely once they've exhausted all other alternatives.

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:39 am

I have no problem with the fighter as is, btb he outshines the other classes in what he does, fight. Looking at the fighter in head to head combat against any other class, he will kick A**. His +2 to hit, +1 damage bonus over any other class means he is the best at fighting. There may be situations where other classes take center stage, but overall the fighteris just better.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:38 am

The fighter seems to rule combat overall in my campaigns.

I did tweak him -or her- somewhat using moriarty777's Combat Dominance idea however:

"At 4th level, the fighter gains an extra attack when fighting opponents with half the fighter's hit dice or less. This extra attack may be directed to a different opponent as long as they are within reach and meet the hit die criteria. This ability improves as the fighter progresses in levels with an additional attack gained every four levels thereafter. Combat Dominance does not combine with the Extra Attack ability and cannot be applied to ranged weapons."

BLOOD AXE · Post by **BLOOD AXE** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:32 pm

I don't have any real issues with the Fighter class. Its quite a popular choice with any players I've campaigned with. I do think Combat Dominance is a rather weak ability though. I like some of the ideas others have posted in tweaking it a bit. Compared to other Classes special skills,it could use a boost.

BASH MAN · Post by **BASH MAN** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:33 pm

Really? I think C&C fighters rock! I'd certainly much rather be a fighter than the much weaker, but for some reason more expensive to level barbarian!

Any other class I play would probably be a split class w/ fighter! (Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Wizard, Fighter/Cleric, etc)
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:49 pm

Fighters, unlike other classes, have no drawbacks. None. All they get are benefits, and they can use anything (with few exceptions,) have the best attack rate, and can always find a way to be useful.

nittanytbone14 · Post by **nittanytbone14** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:40 am

serleran wrote:
Fighters, unlike other classes, have no drawbacks. None. All they get are benefits, and they can use anything (with few exceptions,) have the best attack rate, and can always find a way to be useful.

Drawbacks of the Fighter Class:

- No spell casting

- Limited access to magic items

- No class skills other than those handwaved by DM for background (same as any other class)

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:24 am

nittanytbone14 wrote:
Drawbacks of the Fighter Class:

- No spell casting

Thats not true. They can always throw the magic user at someone. Thats spell casting isn't it? ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Troll Lord Games

Based on the FIGHTER???

Based on the FIGHTER???

Re: Based on the FIGHTER???

Re: Based on the FIGHTER???