Yet another obligatory Fighter thread! Yay!
A lot of Fighter fixes (both here and elsewhere) try to make the Fighter good at combat, usually solving glaring flaws/weaknesses in the class which prevents it from being useless or overshadowed by the party Rogue/Cleric/Wizard. Most of these solutions involve increased versatility and power in combat, but give little in the way of out-of-combat and utility skills (both of which the spellcasters have plenty of in spells).
A lot of people don't like the "Dumb Melee Fighter" archetype which seems to persist in D&D (especially in 3rd Edition). Many warriors throughout myth and legend were skilled in all manner of non-combat abilities, from the charming swashbuckler who can smooth-talk his way out of sticky situations to the perceptive cop who can pick up clues and spot strange behavior in suspects. Many players don't want to feel useless out of combat, especially in the more unorthodox adventures involving puzzle-solving mysteries and NPC interaction.
Should the Fighter have an assortment of mechanical tricks he can use out of combat and not reliant on DM Fiat or multiclassing? How broad should his skill base be?
My thoughts on the matter are "yes." I see nothing wrong with a 3rd Edition/Pathfinder Fighter having access to Knowledge skills, social interaction skills, and more "sneaky" skills like Stealth and Disable Device. I also think that giving more "versatile" and pseudo-magical abilities to Fighters useful in and out of combat can be good as well, such as having high ranks in Jump/Acrobatics granting you sort-of-but-not-quite-flight at middle-high levels, or a "mage hunter" getting Spell Resistance or the ability to detect/shrug off magical effects.
Awaiting your opinions and answers!
I don't see why not given most fighters were nobles or of the nobility so were pretty well educated for the time. Or at least a great many concepts and motifs fit under that direction. I see nothing wrong with giving everybody more skill points with no half ranks and a hard cap on skills magic items or not.
Do what 5e is trying and give Rogues some kind of special that makes them better in certain grouping of spells.
Depends on the concept the player has in mind for the fighter they intend to play(and the campaign wolrd they're adventuring in), a balanced spread of skills tied to the background they choose for there fighter would be fine for helping the player in out of combat stuff but im sure the player and gm can roleplay any other stuff that pops up without a rule to govern it.
Fighter works best in a system with extremely broad classes. So in a game where the other options are cleric, wizard, and rogue, yes a fighter should have out of combat goodies or options for them.
There's also the question of how these things could be codified. For myself, I'd be happy with stat checks front and center and giving fighters stat boosts, NWPs or slots for class features, or even 3x/4e style "button mashing." Denners seem to favor the last; OSR doesn't see this as an issue normally, but occasionally has one of the first two (at least I've seen it in ACKS).
Last consideration is whether parity is an issue, which depends (for me) on whether people can choose race/class/spells/skill set etc. If character content is generated randomly, parity is not and never will be an issue.
Quote from: Libertad;574907...
A lot of people don't like the "Dumb Melee Fighter" archetype which seems to persist in D&D (especially in 3rd Edition). Many warriors throughout myth and legend were skilled in all manner of non-combat abilities, from the charming swashbuckler who can smooth-talk his way out of sticky situations to the perceptive cop who can pick up clues and spot strange behavior in suspects. Many players don't want to feel useless out of combat, especially in the more unorthodox adventures involving puzzle-solving mysteries and NPC interaction.
...
What you are describing is a fighter/rogue hybrid.
Encouraging more people to play fighter/rogue hybrids rather than pure dumb-as-a-donkey fighter types might make for a more playable game.
Personally I feel in AD&D 1st ed in its traditional format the fighter was in his element... the same goes for BECMI and AD&D 2nd ed. Ask me about 3rd ed and I no longer care, 4th ed and I never did.
But getting back to basics, all this stuff you are talking about is in D&D terms the province of rogues, classically anyway. Including bards under the general umbrella of rogues, which is not exactly AD&D 1st ed orthodoxy (they are dual classed fighter-thieves who then get another class of bard), but close enough.
You can't fix a broken player.
Quote from: Rum Cove;574955You can't fix a broken player.
Right here, he has it.
I've never had a problem with a fighter being overshadowed outside of combat. It's one of the things I am liking with 5e and it's return to OD&D: anyone can attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. The rogue is going to be the best at it sure, but just roll against the DC and see if you do it.
That's for the mechanical stuff. For the role-playing stuff, no class is any worse than any other because it's you as the player role-playing. If you don't like to contribute and participate out of combat, that's on you, not the class.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574961I've never had a problem with a fighter being overshadowed outside of combat. It's one of the things I am liking with 5e and it's return to OD&D: anyone can attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. The rogue is going to be the best at it sure, but just roll against the DC and see if you do it.
That's for the mechanical stuff. For the role-playing stuff, no class is any worse than any other because it's you as the player role-playing. If you don't like to contribute and participate out of combat, that's on you, not the class.
Another caveat: depends on the level of niche protection.
Older D&D had skill overlap. Fighter had the strength to force a door (maybe maybe not) all damn day, rogue could do like the fighter but quiet, and a wizard could do it better but on a limited resource. Broad classes, broad skillsets, and deliberate redundancy... all good for any game where chargen provides limited choices.
EDIT: Each might still have been best at one thing, but little was really exclusive.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574961Right here, he has it.
I've never had a problem with a fighter being overshadowed outside of combat. It's one of the things I am liking with 5e and it's return to OD&D: anyone can attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. The rogue is going to be the best at it sure, but just roll against the DC and see if you do it.
That's for the mechanical stuff. For the role-playing stuff, no class is any worse than any other because it's you as the player role-playing. If you don't like to contribute and participate out of combat, that's on you, not the class.
This why I'm liking where 5e is going with ability checks being central. I do wish skills were broader like 2e but it's going the right direction, which is the hell away from the 3/4e skill for everything paradigm. Not quite there but a module could fix that just fine.
Quote from: Marleycat;574968This why I'm liking where 5e is going with ability checks being central. I do wish skills were broader like 2e but it's going the right direction, which is the hell away from the 3/4e skill for everything paradigm. Not quite there but a module could fix that just fine.
As a player of AD&D, one of the things I really like about it is the ability as a DM to say, "Ok, you want to do X? Make a dexterity check at a -2 penalty. That sounds fair."
3e stopped this because now all the sudden you had a skill for everything, and the impression is that if you don't have the skill, you can't do it. I don't know if 4e retained that or not. But I'm glad to see 5e go back to a simple mechanic for handling things like this.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574986As a player of AD&D, one of the things I really like about it is the ability as a DM to say, "Ok, you want to do X? Make a dexterity check at a -2 penalty. That sounds fair."
3e stopped this because now all the sudden you had a skill for everything, and the impression is that if you don't have the skill, you can't do it. I don't know if 4e retained that or not. But I'm glad to see 5e go back to a simple mechanic for handling things like this.
I played 4e a few times they went similar to Pathfinder, consolidation of skills but still too narrow like 3x. I have figured out why I like the ability check thing beyond what you mentioned. It's very similar to WoD games with the DC's being a GM call. Also very 2eish with the NWP's. It's simple and quick and if there's an issue it can be easily altered after a discussion when the game is done. That sir is right up my alley because it's all about the table not the rules.
This isn't even contested in this thread but short answer "yes" a fighter SHOULD have a bunch of out of combat shit he can do. Everyone wants their fighter to do out of combat shit, there's no reason he shouldn't have out of combat shit, every "fighter" type of person in almost any piece of media worth alluding to has fighters that explicitly do out of combat shit of some sort. Batman can do a million and one things. Guts (berserk) has been shown to be able to make repairs on his mechanical arm/knows military tactics/Can track. He can also see ghosts before it was cool (and by that I mean before the FAntasia chapter where imaginary shit got real). Battlehammer can craft magic items, knows military tactics and shit about caves. People "want" fighters to be able to do "something" out of battle. The only people who usually don't are the players who only care about being in battles and don't pay attention to the stuff in between.
@Mguy
What would be the best way to accomplish this? Not just in 3rd Edition, but in other Editions in general?
I don't think a simple expansion of skills/non-weapon proficiencies/etc is enough, particularly if spellcasters can still do cool stuff both in and out of combat.
What about giving the Fighter (a versatile-sounding concept) something equivalent to themed "kits?" Like a guerrilla soldier is good at stealth and deceiving the enemy, a mage hunter can lock down/negate magic, a legendary artisan can build awesome weapons/gadgets, etc. It could be equivalent to Cleric domains or Wizard schools, where Fighters can take abilities from warrior archetypes which help both in and out of combat.
I'm aware that the Frank and K Tome Series Fighter can do a lot of the stuff I mentioned above, but it's 3rd Edition only and at a higher power level than many are comfortable with.
Quote from: Libertad;575028I'm aware that the Frank and K Tome Series Fighter can do a lot of the stuff I mentioned above, but it's 3rd Edition only and at a higher power level than many are comfortable with.
I feel the same way a bout the Tomes. I don't like the wizard power level and bringing just about everything up there is not the solution I like.
Anyways I've outlined my solution (got a thread her and at the Den that covers the project I've been working on). For this question I should point something out. I've said this in several other threads but its the general principle I go by: The fighters should have an equal or close to equal amount of awesome as other classes. The problem with third is that after a certain level the supernatural stuff completely trumps the mundane stuff. Not by just a little. So my solution is to cut away the fighter that is only good at battle and cut away the caster that can do "everything". I believe that fighters should get about the same number of problem solving tools as everyone else. There's really no reason a barbarian, rogue, paladin, monk, ranger (all basically fighters of some sort) should just get goodies while the fighter gets none. So I say decide on a power level you wanna play whether it be highlevel (super hero level game) mid level (my preferred spot) or low level (low magic reaching the peak of human performance or just a little beyond it).
I do like the idea in 3rd Edition of "themed" spellcasters, such as the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. Still versatile and cool to play, but limited in the sense that they couldn't go CoDzilla.
So what exactly do you think is a starting point for out-of-combat fighter stuff? You mentioned a couple characters in media (Beserk, Battlehammer); what characters from media and myth should the D&D Fighter replicate?
Quote from: Libertad;575028@Mguy
What would be the best way to accomplish this? Not just in 3rd Edition, but in other Editions in general?
I don't think a simple expansion of skills/non-weapon proficiencies/etc is enough, particularly if spellcasters can still do cool stuff both in and out of combat.
What about giving the Fighter (a versatile-sounding concept) something equivalent to themed "kits?" Like a guerrilla soldier is good at stealth and deceiving the enemy, a mage hunter can lock down/negate magic, a legendary artisan can build awesome weapons/gadgets, etc. It could be equivalent to Cleric domains or Wizard schools, where Fighters can take abilities from warrior archetypes which help both in and out of combat.
I'm aware that the Frank and K Tome Series Fighter can do a lot of the stuff I mentioned above, but it's 3rd Edition only and at a higher power level than many are comfortable with.
Domains and schools kind of like Rokagun or Lot5R that's a good start if 2e and before isn't tripping your trigger.
Yes please on themed magic users. There is a reason why I think Mearls should steal anything possible from FC, DCC and others. Just do it!
Quote from: Marleycat;575037Domains and schools kind of like Rokagun or Lot5R that's a good start if 2e and before isn't tripping your trigger.
Not familiar with Rokugan. What did they do, exactly?
I actually think that OD&D/1st Edition had some neat and unique features for Fighters. In OD&D, only Fighters could use magic swords, which had the potential to give all sorts of nifty abilities. 1st Edition Fighters got Exceptional Strength and could make multiple attacks against 1 or less Hit Die opponents. These last two abilities are highly situational and won't make up for Linear Warrirors, Quadratic Wizards, but giving the Fighter unique abilities is a step in the right direction (and I don't consider 3rd Edition's Weapon Focus feat tree to be the right step).
Quote from: Libertad;575034I do like the idea in 3rd Edition of "themed" spellcasters, such as the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. Still versatile and cool to play, but limited in the sense that they couldn't go CoDzilla.
So what exactly do you think is a starting point for out-of-combat fighter stuff? You mentioned a couple characters in media (Beserk, Battlehammer); what characters from media and myth should the D&D Fighter replicate?
Depends on the setting. In Berserk (my favorite Manga/Anime ever ever) things don't get off the ground a whole lot. At this point Guts has a magic suit of armor and a huge magic sword. With it he fights a bunch of demons. He has a mage on his team (and one in training) but all she can do is make barriers against demons (not people), astral project, keep him from going insane and can see/understand magic shit. Nothing overpowered. In One Piece everyone fights to some degree and in interesting (sometimes over the top) ways. The mundane characters can create mini storms, summon giant plants/fire, easily bust through walls, etc. So the setting sets what you can/n't expect from mundane characters.
DnD however has a wider range to cover. You literally have to go from average person tier (at level one) to fighting titans (at level 20). I'm not going to lie, I don't know how you can cover that kind of power difference in just 20 levels. The shit you fight in DnD is just too fantastic. While people concentrate a lot on wizards they do not concentrate on what the opposition can do. Demons, liches, dragons, etc all have powers like a wizard or sorcerer. They have all the reality shattering effects that wizards do and can fight as well as (and has more survivability than) a fighter on top of that. Casters keep up just fine becauase they don't have any restraints on what they can do. It has been well noted on this board people hate powering up fighters appropriately. So for those who want to shackle the fighter but keep them relevant you have to cut from the top. Otherwise... Well here's something someone wrote up at the Den within the last 24 hours:
Quote from: AndreiChekovI only recently got it to tome stuff. And discovering that the fighter was garbage was also recent. So I don't really understand how things become uneven at higher level, i just remember feeling useless as the party paladin.
Could you tell me what's bad about it at high levels please?
to which someone answere:
Quote from: maxusSure! Educate
Beginning past level 5, and certainly well in effect after level 10, a character's abilities have become more important than their raw numbers (to a degree).
At level 10, the Fighter...can stab things. At level 10, the Cleric can summon angels and demons and monsters, heal the sick, harm the wicked, travel to another dimension (plane shift), and they can even send someone to Hell while they're still alive (also plane shift). There's no amount of face-stabbing that comes close to the utility of that. AND the cleric can fight as well as the Fighter, thanks to Divine Power.
The problem also exists with the wizard--they get actual abilities and ways to affect the game world. Not numbers.
This isn't a problem with the casters though--it's a problem with the fighter. See, monsters also grow increasingly stronger and diverse in what they can do. Traditional fantasy says it should be possible to take a dragon in a one-on-one fight. That isn't going to happen in D&D, not with a Fighter or a Paladin. Everything in the game grows steadily more incredible and insane, but the melee fighters are expected to be realistic. By level 20, you should at least be pulling some serious God of War-type bullshit. But instead, a level 20 fighter doesn't get astoundingly strong. Sure, he can get stronger than a person here, but not Hercules or Roland strong. It's faintly possible that if he focused on Strength, he could get Beowulf-level strong. The fighters don't get inherently faster or more agile. All they get, is numbers.
By the same token, animals are pretty tame. Even a T-Rex is CR 8. D&D animals just don't get the stuff to be survivable or to contribute to the party as anything other than a transport, comic relief, or emergency rations.
Monks get goofy "inner mind" type stuff, Paladins and Rangers get spellcasting from the Gods, and Barbarians rage.
Since Fighters are about fighting and mastering certain weapon styles, perhaps they can gain stuff related to fighting styles. At middle to high levels, when you're fighting giants and dragons and archmages, the Fighter can replicate certain magic spells and do superhuman actions. A nimble Fighter can ignore negative effects of terrain, act hasted through an "adrenaline surge," and jump really high/glide. An inspring figure can give morale bonuses like a Bard, negate mind-affecting spells on himself and others, and stave off damage and grant hit points "through second wind/fighting through the pain." For things that Clerics can do (summon monsters, banish foes), a Fighter might get duplicate abilities ("the cavalry has arrived"/rescue attempt of minions like summoned monsters, staring down an opponent and getting him to surrender/relent like save-or-suck spells).
Quote from: Libertad;575048Not familiar with Rokugan. What did they do, exactly?
I actually think that OD&D/1st Edition had some neat and unique features for Fighters. In OD&D, only Fighters could use magic swords, which had the potential to give all sorts of nifty abilities. 1st Edition Fighters got Exceptional Strength and could make multiple attacks against 1 or less Hit Die opponents. These last two abilities are highly situational and won't make up for Linear Warrirors, Quadratic Wizards, but giving the Fighter unique abilities is a step in the right direction (and I don't consider 3rd Edition's Weapon Focus feat tree to be the right step).
Mguy has suddenly gone sane which means I drank too much again. Oh, you were asking about Rokagun? It's the 3x D20 version of LotFR hon. You know that game?
(Football season is nearly here so I am getting a bit "blonde"). I love my Seattle Seahawks and we have a quarterback! Watch out 49ers!!:)
Quote from: Libertad;574907Should the Fighter have an assortment of mechanical tricks he can use out of combat and not reliant on DM Fiat or multiclassing? How broad should his skill base be?
My thoughts on the matter are "yes." I see nothing wrong with a 3rd Edition/Pathfinder Fighter having access to Knowledge skills, social interaction skills, and more "sneaky" skills like Stealth and Disable Device. I also think that giving more "versatile" and pseudo-magical abilities to Fighters useful in and out of combat can be good as well, such as having high ranks in Jump/Acrobatics granting you sort-of-but-not-quite-flight at middle-high levels, or a "mage hunter" getting Spell Resistance or the ability to detect/shrug off magical effects.
Yes, a versatility in skills is a good thing. I prefer to play Fighters whose abilities can be explained by mundane logic (the mythical Fighter archetype is okay for high-level games, but it's not a range of power I am interested in exploring), but who are competent, well-rounded individuals. Sometimes, skill-and-ability systems fence you in more than they give you extra options, because they can be read in a way that says
"if you do not have it on your character sheet, you can't do that".
I prefer a game which has more fluid barriers between things you can do well, things you are handy with, and things you can't attempt. In classic D&D editions, I support Philotomy's take on skills (http://www.philotomy.com/#thieves):
QuoteWhen I allow Thieves, their class skills are treated as extraordinary capabilities. That is, anyone can hide, but a Thief can hide in shadows. Anyone can move quietly, but a Thief can move silently, without even making a sound. Anyone can climb, but a Thief can climb sheer walls.
Naturally, this was
not a universal interpretation of O/AD&D. Many, maybe even the majority of people played it in a way that was less generous. In my own rules variant - a combination of a trimmed-down d20 system and old school ideas - I use a formal skill system, but give characters a very broad access to both skills and combat maneouvres (things that would be covered by 3e's feats), and a decent chance of success. And of course, there are yet other ways to accomplish the same goals. The concept of prestige classes as originally envisioned might have been a great tool to broaden character abilities (instead of leading into overspecialisation and CharOp). Ability checks may be another, supported by specialisation packages that give you background / flavour options. (This might make a great way to do it in 5e - actually, how does 5e do this stuff now?)
They are going with your last two suggestions and ability checks mostly. It's almost like 2e but not quite because of "advantage" and dice expertise but it's very close. Dice expertise is very similar to DCC fighter/dwarf stuff and FC action dice in my opinion. YMMV.
That's good to hear. I will have to take a look at the newest info out there, haven't been checking in a while.
Quote from: Melan;575079That's good to hear. I will have to take a look at the newest info out there, haven't been checking in a while.
Ben called it. This game is for me. I also said I am the excluded middle many times so take that as you will. Honestly so far this game sounds awesome and it plays real easy. For a casual player like myself it's pure heaven. Not sure it would work for old hands. It's taking alot of FC's basic stuff with a twist. My question is can they continue with KISS?
Quote from: Marleycat;575057I love my Seattle Seahawks and we have a quarterback! Watch out 49ers!!:)
The Seahawks exist only to choke mid-season and then make every team it faces miserable since they cannot get into the playoffs.
The 49ers do not have to worry about the Seahawks.
Quote from: jeff37923;575101The Seahawks exist only to choke mid-season and then make every team it faces miserable since they cannot get into the playoffs.
The 49ers do not have to worry about the Seahawks.
I should put you on my IL for that offense. Lucky for you that I like you and Teddy. Go Seahawks.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;575091Ben called it. This game is for me. I also said I am the excluded middle many times so take that as you will. Honestly so far this game sounds awesome and it plays real easy. For a casual player like myself it's pure heaven. Not sure it would work for old hands. It's taking alot of FC's basic stuff with a twist. My question is can they continue with KISS?
Looking at what ENWorld has on skills (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+Mechanics#Skills+and+Ability+Scores), it seems decent enough. Freeing the game from the constraints of
over-mechanisation and taking it back into a fuzzier space of rules+player ideas+character concept+negotiation is a move in the right direction -
if, as you say, the mechanics that remain are easy, elegant and robust. Looks like Robert Schwalb is seeing the same issues with too tightly defined skills as I do:
Quote from: Robert SchwalbAlthough many see skills as empowering, offering customization options and character definition, in my experience, skills actually constricted game play so players tended to operate only within the bounds of the skills their characters possessed. If you tried to do something that wasn’t a skill, the DM might fall back on an ability check, which in both 3rd and 4th Edition wasn’t great since you didn’t get to add your skill/training bonus to your check result. Rather than improvise and come up with something unexpected, I found, in my own gaming experiences, players combed the skill lists on the character sheet to determine what they could and couldn’t do when presented with a challenge.
Quote from: Marleycat;575057(Football season is nearly here so I am getting a bit "blonde"). I love my Seattle Seahawks and we have a quarterback! Watch out 49ers!!:)
NFL cannot start soon enough!
as a brit i have to say NFL and NHL are probably the 2 sports(not counting psudo sports/entertainment like ufc and wrestling) i actually give a damn about so yeah the new season of nfl cant come early enough.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;575466as a brit i have to say NFL and NHL are probably the 2 sports(not counting psudo sports/entertainment like ufc and wrestling) i actually give a damn about so yeah the new season of nfl cant come early enough.
Are you willing to accept the Jaguars as your team?
Quote from: Marleycat;575057(Football season is nearly here so I am getting a bit "blonde"). I love my Seattle Seahawks and we have a quarterback! Watch out 49ers!!:)
Maybe so, but our best QB is the rookie who won't get playing time because we just paid Flynn a ton of money
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575547Maybe so, but our best QB is the rookie who won't get playing time because we just paid Flynn a ton of money
10 million isn't anything compared to other QB's. I am not ready to jump on Wilson's bandwagon. He is starting against KC this week and I wouldn't want to be Pete Carroll if he goes lights out. Anyway this is way off topic so back to your regularly scheduled thread.:)
I have no issue with a fighter getting nice things I just disagree with how the "denners" want to implement it.
Quote from: Rum Cove;575538Are you willing to accept the Jaguars as your team?
Lol i dont really have a set team i follow as the channel that shows nfl over here tends to just show whatever the sunday night game on nbc happens to be that week(and even then i think it's dependent on east coast feeds), but if they happen to be in any games featured im sure they'd be a team to root for over say the cowboys(who i believe are abit to similar to manchester united in there ridiculously overpaid players).
Quote from: Libertad;574907My thoughts on the matter are "yes." I see nothing wrong with a 3rd Edition/Pathfinder Fighter having access to Knowledge skills, social interaction skills, and more "sneaky" skills like Stealth and Disable Device. I also think that giving more "versatile" and pseudo-magical abilities to Fighters useful in and out of combat can be good as well, such as having high ranks in Jump/Acrobatics granting you sort-of-but-not-quite-flight at middle-high levels, or a "mage hunter" getting Spell Resistance or the ability to detect/shrug off magical effects.
Awaiting your opinions and answers!
Mentioned this elsewhere here, a while back, but my skill fix for the 3e fighter was to let the fighter pick any two skills that fit into a theme; he gets 4 ranks in those 2 skills and they are now considered class skills. This lets you do things like an eagle-eyed archer (Spot + Search), pirate captain (Prof: Sailing + Survival (or Use Rope, I guess)), wizard's bodyguard (Spellcraft + Use Magic Device), thug/highwayman (Hide + Move Silently), noble knight (Diplomacy + Knowledge: Nobility) etc. etc. without having to multiclass all the time for every damn thing.
D&D is a 'team game' and it's suggested for parties of 4 or more players. But the easier the game is to play, and the more it supports smaller parties, the better the game is in the long-run. Getting 5 people together to start playing is orders of magnitude harder than getting two people together to start playing. But once you have a game running, addiing people to the existing game is pretty easy.
If you can start with two players, you can add players until you reach your 'happy point'. But if you can't start without the 'minimum number of players' you can't ever get started.
Class design should reflect that. The game should be interesting and playable with a single character of a single class. It should be BETTER with more players, but the game should be POSSIBLE with just one.
I really find that Fighters can be interesting as solo-characters for only a very short time before the game breaks. Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards can pretty much solo at all levels of play. Obviously the casters have spells that help address some 'deficiencies' that they have; the non-casters can use potions for some of the caster type issues; but rogues can do more of that... Once a door gets arcane locked, the Fighter literally gets stuck.
I think that having out-of-combat abilities is important to ALL characters. It's a requirement to enable solo-play, which is desireable, even if group play is MORE desireable.