In dnd style games, I like fighters to have the best armour, best weapons, excellent hit chance, excellent damage, good durability and adaptable in combat. With a bit of out of combat utility on the side.

I also want all the other classes to be good at combat however. Just in other ways, and generally less frequently than the fighter, whose abilities I prefer to be "always on". For example, I prefer the fighter ability "crits on 19-20" as opposed to a 2/day second wind mini heal.

I don't want the fighter to be a towering juggernaut on the battlefield, resigning other classes to a cheer squad (which was my feeling with 4e post 11th level; the strikers did all the heavy lifting, and it got boring for the other roles).

I think my favorite iterations of "fighters" have been the 4e one and making any fighting focused character in RQ6/Mythras. I like options with my being tough.

I don't have a problem with anyone else having armor and being as tough as me, but they shouldn't really go past me. I should be able to pick up just about any weapon (or a large set, at least) and use it effectively. I should be able to cover close up and range, even if it means thrown weapons. I should have a shield, because shields are smart. I should be strong, and do a lot of damage, though it doesn't have to be that much more than anyone else. Strong dude with a big sword should be doing the same damage as me, but maybe he doesn't get my tricks. He's probably not as good with the small sword, the big bow, the spear, the axe, or the mace as me, but he shouldn't be that far behind me in that one thing. I should be able ot move through my options seamlessly. I train in this, constantly. I should be moving to my backup weapon (and by god, I have a backup weapon) if I get disarmed (and I will practice not getting disarmed later). I am disadvantaged, i have a way out that I'm practiced at, and probably pretty good. I should not be able to be easily removed.

I like my fighters sort of comparable to batman wizards, but a bit different scale and feel.

Talking early D&D, I like the 'attacking creatures of 1HD or less'  rule or, even better, the simplified houserule that a fighter can kill 1dLevel enemies per round if fighting no opponent of greater than 1HD. Speeds up combat immensely, makes fighters great against mooks.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1021472Talking early D&D, I like the 'attacking creatures of 1HD or less'  rule or, even better, the simplified houserule that a fighter can kill 1dLevel enemies per round if fighting no opponent of greater than 1HD. Speeds up combat immensely, makes fighters great against mooks.

Yup, the "Fighter's Number of Attacks vs. 1 HD-1 enemies Equal to Fighter Level" was a remarkably good rule, carried all the way through into AD&D 2e DMG. Even at second level and beyond you are getting horde breaking speed, as it's additional attacks that do not affect their already extant multiple attacks. Even a one-handed 3/2 rd Wpn. Spec. attack spread at 2nd lvl is striking 5 times in two rounds, (1st rd: 2 atk for 2nd lvl vs. 1HD-1; 2nd rd: 2 atk for 2nd lvl vs. 1HD-1 plus an iterative atk = 5 atk in 2 rds).

Funny, I always hated the Fighter Attacks = Level rule, every since I ran Isle of Dread and saw what some double-digit level Fighters did to those poor Natives. :eek:

I never liked the fighter attacks = level vs 1 hd creatures. It never seemed to pop up much. But i guess that was just the adventures we used.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1021452I personally would like to see Fighters get a damage bonus equal to half their level or even equal to their level with every attack.

Rangers can feather you with arrows and have magic, Paladins get smites and magic and Barbarians have rage and dull caster classes, well we know what the can do.

But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.

I started doing that when I ditched the monk class.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1021495I never liked the fighter attacks = level vs 1 hd creatures. It never seemed to pop up much. But i guess that was just the adventures we used.

Personally, in the one (or was two?) games of 1e (? Memory is hazy there) I played, that also never came up.  As most of monsters we faced were 1 HD +1.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1021452I personally would like to see Fighters get a damage bonus equal to half their level or even equal to their level with every attack.

Rangers can feather you with arrows and have magic, Paladins get smites and magic and Barbarians have rage and dull caster classes, well we know what the can do.

But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.

I did that in 3.x, but I put it across the Fighter classes (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Fighter), simply due to the fact that the other classes had an escalating damage system built in.

In 5e, I'm allowing the Fighting Man types to gain a Weapon Die (or Dice in the case of Mauls and Great Swords) every 5th levels like the Cantrips (The Fighter's Extra Attack is a trap anyway.  A monk at 5+ level gets four attacks per Chi point spent.  Fighter's have to wait until 20th level.  A Horde Breaker Ranger with Dual Wielding does less damage but also gets 4 attacks at level 5+), so far it seems to be working OK.  We don't have a Rogue so I cannot compare this ruling to that class.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1021452But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.

I find in 5e D&D it's the Barbarian who is closest to my idea of what a 'tough guy' Fighter should be. It's the Barbarian I see solo ridiculously tough monsters.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1021495I never liked the fighter attacks = level vs 1 hd creatures. It never seemed to pop up much. But i guess that was just the adventures we used.

It is certainly a mechanic whose benefit is very 'what one ends up fighting'-dependent. Given monster entries indicating that you might end up fighting hundreds of orcs or goblins, I think it was simply such that the game designer assumptions and what DMs ended up doing did not end up syncing up.

I will give 3e credit-- Cleave and Whirlwind Attack are nice, simple, straightforward ideas.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1021091In Lion & Dragon, I make fighters by far the most competent at combat.  They get more attacks, better hit bonuses, more damage, can use armor more effectively, and are better at parrying.

How strong do you want your fighters to be at fighting compared to other classes? And how do you want them to be that way: special abilities (feats, etc), higher base combat stats (like I do in L&D) or some other method?

Every character/class/role realisticly strong compared to each other.

Many people are fine with a soldier or knight being far stronger than a baker or scribe, problem is if one begins to make more capable fighters and then moves to spellcasters players usually complain about to lack of 'balance' if you make wizards, witches, warlocks powerful, although that would make sense in a fantasy setting, to a point that their families/guilds/schools rule the world instead of usual nobility, and could with spells subdue anyone else other than large masses of people, other spellcasters, or supernatural.

If one doesn't complain about tough warriors, then they shouldn't about mages which don't become spent/useless after a few spells per day. People in a fantasy world should be fearful of great fighters, warlords, but the same should be true even more for wizards.

High speed with low drag.

I play TFT & GURPS and use and focus on tactical combat being one of the main things the game is about. Most PCs tend to be non-magic-using fighters of one variety or another. So I like/want/need to have there be an interesting range of styles and abilities for fighters, and for fighting skills to be useful and needed even when a powerful wizard is around.

Part of that is accomplished by limiting what spell effects exist or are known or available (or at least common) to things that aren't going to make all the fighters redundant or dead.

Most of it is baked into TFT or GURPS already. The TFT magic system especially is balanced for fighters to be on par with wizards (really powerful wizards start to be really powerful, but not many survive to get that powerful, and they still pretty much want/need fighters with them as well). The GURPS character & combat systems especially have interesting differences between characters based on their character stats/skills/traits, equipment, and choices during combat. Skilled, well-equipped, and tactically sound fighters can usually avoid being injured (not soak massive injury) and defeat larger forces of less-skilled/smart opponents, though there's always the risk of something going wrong and the need to come up with what to do to prevent or respond to mishaps.

In think that the Fighter is the measure all other classes. I tend to like the fighters of old when they (at higher levels) were the beasts at the battlefield. And it was also what I liked best about 4e D&D. Say what you want about 4e, but to it's credit the Fighter and martial classes in generel, got to shine. Which was my one of the three best things about it*.

(* Nr 2 Making cleric optional in the party. Nr 3 self-contained statblocks.)

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1021455I have a class called Elite Warriors.

I have to say I don't dig that much. The idea of having a super-class that is in every way better from the regular class (be it elite warriors, elite wizards, elite thieves or whatever) seems to me to ignore the purpose of PC classes as being elites in the first place.

In the larger sense, it's also why I don't generally dig games that have a ton of sub-classes.  You can have all the classes you like, as long as EACH class represents a totally different niche. So if you have tech in your game, you can have an inventor class, or if you have psionics you could have a psychic, you could (if the niche isn't already filled by wizards, as they are in my L&D game) have a 'guy who knows lots of non-magical stuff' class, etc.  But you shouldn't have like 4 different types of fighter classes. Instead, the fighter class itself should be able to encompass a variety of different roles (which is what happens in Lion & Dragon, where players can to some degree choose how to specialize their character's advancement).