|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 8:38AM
#1
|
|
|
I was replying to another thread when this dawned on me...
Shouldn't Fighters be hands down the best at combat? That's what they are best at, shouldn't they be the best at it?
At some point in time, the Wizard player outsmarted the Fighter player into resting after every fight. Before that, the Fighter player would mock the Wizard player or simply drag their character by their robes into the next room of the dungeon.
The Cleric player was always compassionate to the Fighter player and Wizard player's needs. They put up with the Fighter player yelling at them to heal them. They were sympathetic to Wizard player as they too had vancian spells. But that's the kind of person who wants to play a Cleric, or if they were cajoled into playing the Cleric then they wait for their turn to yell at the Cleric to heal them.
The Rogue player... if anyone needed the other members of the party it was the Rogue player, so they played nice with everyone or at least pretended to. And quite frankly, the more the party slept the easier it was to steal their gold, amiright?
But the Fighter player allowed themselves to get marginalized. Sure, the Wizard was going to eventually blow past them if the Fighter kept the Wizard alive long enough for that to happen.
Maybe there wasn't enough Fighter player designers over the nearly 40 years, but as the life of Wizards got better Fighters got nada. Leading to the worst insult evah', being labeled "Defender". What, "Meat Shield" wasn't PC?
I kid, but you get the idea. If Clerics get armor, weapons, spells, healing, the girls... If Rogues get to be, well, rogues! If Wizards get to do everything, better than anyone else. What do the Fighters get? You would think they should be pretty good at fighting stuff.
Social and Fighters are like fine china and dynamite.
Exploration and Fighters are like fine china and bendy straws.
Combat and Fighters... yeah! Combat and Fighters, baby!
I dunno, this seems obvious.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 8:41AM
#2
|
|
|
Fighters should be best at fighting. Fortunately, combat is more than just fighting.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 9:23AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2008
|
Depends what you mean by "combat." If magical combat is a subset of combat, then no, a fighter should not be the best at all things combat.
A fighter should be the best at wearing armor and using heavy weapons. A rogue should be the best at using light weapons and sneaky tactics. A wizard should have flimsy armor and be terrified of getting into melee range.
"Dealing damage," however, is not synonymous with "combat," and no class should have the corner on that market. So if that's what you were trying to imply, I'm going to have to disagree.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 9:37AM
#4
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Shouldn't fighters be the best at adventuring. After all, they're adventurers. Shouldn't they be the best at it?
You, like my mock paragraph above, are absurdly oversimplifying things. Combat includes many things, some of which the fighter should excel and some of which they should not.
I see no reason why fighters should also not excel at some aspects of social encounters. Do they not have faces? Do they not have vocal chords? Do they not also have language proficiencies?
I see no reason why fighters should not also excel at some aspects of exploration. Can they not jump? Swim? See? Smell? Hear? Think?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 9:48AM
#5
|
|
|
Shouldn't Fighters be hands down the best at combat? That's what they are best at, shouldn't they be the best at it?
This is circular reasoning.
Fighters should be best at standing toe to toe with monsters and holding their own, without the use of spells and such. Combat is more than that, as others have said. Being good at one aspect of combat doesn't preclude being worthwhile and interesting the rest of the time. If you want to make fighters that always dump Int, Wis, and Cha really hard, enjoy! If you want to devote your skill resources to physical tasks only, have fun! I don't think that needs to be forced on everyone.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 9:48AM
#6
|
|
|
Of the four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) which would you say is the best at each of the pillars (Combat, Exploration, Social)? For whatever reasons you might have, edition unspecific.
I am saying Fighters should be one of the best (I am actually saying they should be the best) at Combat, because I don't think they are the best at Exploration or Social.
Higher HPs, Defenses, Saves, Attacks and Damage compared to say Skills.
Wouldn't jack-all Wizard make more sense taking a step back in all the pillars? Or better yet, allow the Wizard to choose where they want to make their mark on them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 10:00AM
#7
|
|
|
For the fighter to be the best at combat (which is something I do not agree should happen), does this mean the should be the best at defending, controlling the battlefield, skirmishing around to the easy targets, best at going toe to toe, best at healing their allies, and have the best damage output all at once. Combat clearly isn't a black and white issue. Also, if the fighter was the best at combat does this mean the entire 3e spell list must go away? I mean what is the point in being the best at combat if you can cast a save or die and win the fight much faster. So, what do you mean by best at combat, if you mean perform very well at taking hits and dishig out damage while still relying on teammates (such as the wizard for control or the cleric for combat buffs and healin)? Then I should probably direct you to the 4e PHB.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 10:03AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
It seems to me there are two options to keep fighters "balanced" relative to other classes. You can make them better at combat (taken in the broad sense of being able to contribute more to more fights than anybody else, even if there are aspects of fights that other characters are better at that are either less important or less common) but crappy in the other two pillars, or you can make them equally good at all three pillars relative to other classes. Personally, I much prefer the latter, but you do need to pick one.
4e made fighters the best at defending, a narrow aspect of combat that left everyone else an equal space to contribute via healing/buffing/debuffing/DPR. I liked everyone having equal space to contribute to combat. However, fighters were left with very little to contribute to social encounters and exploration, since the only skills they had any hope of being good at were athletics and endurance, neither of which had much implication to social encounters and both of which got a bit boring/repetitive in exploration compared to the wide breadth of a rogue's skills or a wizards' knowledge and rituals or the universal applicability of a paladin's face. If fighters are going to continue to lag behind in the other pillars, they need more combat awesomeness to make up for it. But I would sooner give them a leg up in the other pillars, so that they don't spend 2/3s of the game bored.
And as everyone else has already pointed out, the fluff only requires fighters to have more combat awesomeness if you take a narrow and simplistic view of combat, so I see no good reason to break balance in its favor.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 10:08AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
Out of the the four base classes fighters should be the toughest. Best AC and HP starting out and do the best against things like saves vs poison.
They should also do at least decent melee damage by default and have some other tricks (marks, stances, tripping, pushing, grappling etc.) that they can pick from and get really good at.
They should also have the option to pursue being really good at doing damage, but that should cost them something, either some of their other ticks or some of their toughness.
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 10:11AM
#10
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Of the four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) which would you say is the best at each of the pillars (Combat, Exploration, Social)?
I don't think any class should be the best at any pillar. That path just paves the way for people to sit out for a third or two-thirds of the playing time. I really can't understand why anybody would think that's a good idea.
|
|
|
