|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:20AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Lots of talk lately about expertise dice, fighter uniqueness, how we should implement it mechanically. But that's a step beyond, in my opinion. Before we can do that, we have to identify what the point of the Fighter is: what they do, why they do it, and why we play them. I get the sense that there are very different perspectives on this, which results in a...challenging discussion on any of the details.
So...
What's the point of the fighter, to you? Why do you want it to be a thing?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:25AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
A fighter is primarily a sports figure. A boxer.
Not a fantasy archetype. As a name for a fantasy archetype it sucks lets just drop it.
Warrior can beat it up and take its stuff.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:29AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
The fighter is the master of traditional and conventional martial combat. It is that because that is a necessary niche to fill in any fantasy setting.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:40AM
#4
|
|
|
its the baseline for other martial class to keep them balanced.
 | Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:43AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
After reading a bunch of posts on a bunch of threads, I was about to post something about fighters. But I think this thread will let me talk about that a bit.I've played just about every class in 1st-3rd. I never felt disenfranchised as a fighter in any edition, and I never seemed to overpower the fighters when I was playing something else. I've played a sword-and-shield "knight," a duellist, an archer, and a greatsword specialist. My job was to make things dead, in the fastest and most efficient way I could.I made my stats fit that job, took weapon proficiencies (and specialisation), feats when they were introduced, and whatever else I could to do that job the best I could manage it. I don't need maneuvers or special powers. I'm one of those players who is content to swing a sword or mace, or fling sticks downrange, and I get a thrill when I tell the DM "I'm aiming for his wrist to eliminate the threat of his evil dagger," and roll, and the DM says I was successful.Now, I never ran out of point-buy points that I couldn't put points into stats that would let me be effective in non-combat situations. But then, I never expected to be able to pick locks as well as the rogue (unless you count this large, two-handed "lockpick" I have  ), or identify magical items except by using them, or heal a companion without using a healing kit, or track as well as the ranger. Sure, I could often see tracks, but the ranger would notice little nuances that would make his tracking more sure or give different conclusions from mine.Our group likes specialists. Generalists just don't work for us. The druid shouldn't expect to be as good as the fighter in a fight, or as good as the rogue when it comes to sneaking around. When it's time to gather information, we all take part, since different enquiry tactics work on different sorts of people, but when it's time to investigate, the rogue is off. When it's time to scout terrain, the ranger takes the ground route while the mage goes "hawk" and makes the aerial run. But when it's time to fight, fighters to the fore, with archers second rank, while the rest help out. But we fully expect the fighters to do the majority of the damage (and they usually oblige with huge grins).
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:44AM
#6
|
|
|
A fighter is primarily a sports figure. A boxer.
Not a fantasy archetype. As a name for a fantasy archetype it sucks lets just drop it.
Warrior can beat it up and take its stuff.
That's not the only definition for a fighter. Historically, anyone who fought competitively was a fighter and that included fights to the death with weapons.
The best Fighter ever is Fighter, of course. Swordchucks, yo!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:51AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Usually I'm playing a fighter when I want to play a straight forward wade in combat and kill things character. There may or may not be a social or other factors to the character, but they are independent of being a fighter. I also like fighter/rogue characters, who are either skirmishers or balanced between melee/skirmisher.
Despite the prevalence of fighting characters in story and game, there are actually few pure archetypes to draw upon. Most characters in stories are fighters + something else to make the character more interesting.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 6:58AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2009
|
I think you're right Mand12, there are many different takes on what the Fighter is and should be.
I myself see the Fighter Class as a baseline to allow us to create our version of a character that is a skilled Combatant. Whether that is a Modern-styled Boxer, a Grecian Warrior-Statesman, a Medieval Man-at-Arms, the Renaissance Duelist-Philosopher, an Eastern Martial Artist or the Noble Knight. He can be a simple Thug, or a skilled Tactician. The Soldier, and the Warlord who commands him.
I want the Fighter to have the Mechanical Ability to represent any of these examples.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:17AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2009
|
I find the fighter a useful class when I have a character concept that uses weapon based fighting, but does not fit other weapon based classes, like barbarian or ranger. Often this is because those other classes come with story baggage that does not fit with my concept. In a sense, the fighter is a blank canvass onto which I can paint a wide range of characters.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:28AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
To define the fighter, we have to define what is a rogue and what is a ranger.
Some light soldiers/warriors types could be defined as what are rogues and rangers in D&D.
Rangers as two weapons fighters living in the wilderness make no sense in many natural surrounding, including the underdark where the passages can be far too narrow to use more than a single short weapon. And archery in surroundings like average to dense forests is not the best choice regarding combat.
Rogues are totally undefined, they range from the scorbutic beggar to the fearless light two-weapon fighter, but even the scorbutic beggar only see combat from a sneak attacking point of view, even if it's suicidal for him. They are worst than wizards from a concept definition point of view.
The roles I would give to them :
• Fighters are trained to exploit their Strength in combat. So they are best served with heavy weapons and armors.
• Rangers are trained to exploit their Dexterity in combat. (They are the light fighters). They operate better than fighters in difficult natural surrondings, so most of them specialize into this area not covered by fighters.
• Rogues are not trained combattant at all. Most of them develop combat abilities derived from the way they live or survive. The closer to combat training some rogues may have with weapons are based on hit and run tactics. Most are not competent in direct combat, but they are dangerous X-factors during them.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
