|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:38AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jan 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.
For so many of those they would have to allow smarts to be used as part of fighting .. but since you know you cant make clever, inspired, precise, tricky, spirited, focused or potent attacks by exploiting perception or intelligence or strength of personality.. It just wont happen its gotta be brute force baby
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:41AM
#12
|
|
|
To me, Fighters are weapon specialists and that use weapon attacks to defeat opponents in combat. Although each individual Fighter may vary in whether they focus on the type of armor they wear, the type of weapons they use, or ranged attacks or melee attacks, they still revolve around weapons.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:45AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
For me the fighter is the blunt instrument of the group. The fighter is not a smart man. He is not an honest man. He is not a clean man. He is not a rational man. But he is a very big man. With weapons. And metal clothing. The point is, there's fun in kicking all kinds of ass with a simple character. Options are good; the fighter needs to decide what kind of simple style they want, but they ought to not clutter their array with extras. What they do, they do very well. I agree with Steele: I run a 2e AD&D game, I run 3e and now I run 5e. 4e never caught on for reasons beyond the system itself, but I'm not against running it should I have a group with enough of a will to figure it out. The fighter hasn't ever been a bad character class.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:46AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I don't like fighter as Str warriors and rangers as Dex warriors.
I prefer fighters as the weapons and armor warrior. The barbarian as the raw talent warrior. The ranger as the situational and exotic warrior. And the rogue sucking at fighting so they cheat, look for openings, or run like little girls.
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 - 7:54AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Fighter, well...he fights, and that's basically everything he does.
He is steady, reliable source of hitpoints and damage.
Barbarian can out damage him in rage and by superior movement so he could get more charge/flanking but at armor cost.
Ranger could out damage him in range combat and difficult terrain combat and stealth combat.
Paladin can out damage him vs undead and other evil stuff.
Fighter is actually a bard of hand to hand combat, good in every aspect of it but master of no special style.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:07AM
#16
|
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.
For so many of those they would have to allow smarts to be used as part of fighting .. but since you know you cant make clever, inspired, precise, tricky, spirited, focused or potent attacks by exploiting perception or intelligence or strength of personality.. It just wont happen its gotta be brute force baby
Your cynicism is not unjustified, as reading the comments in this thread alone make clear. I keep buying into DnDNext's hype, hoping to see them make progress with the system. I don't have a problem with them doing what they need, to bring all Editions to the same table. I'd love to see that. That doesn't mean they need to backslide, though. Or maybe they just need to go further. As I understand it, before the Rogue appeared, the Fighter was also a skilled warrior.
I'll continue voicing my concerns and opinions, and hope that the Fighter class is not regulated to the simple man of violence. If in the end it is though, I know I will not be buying 5th Ed.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:10AM
#17
|
|
|
The fighter has no point. It is made to cover the archetype of someone who fights. This is however too broad in a class based game. People want the fighter to be unarmored savages, mounted knights, daring swashbucklers, archers, martial artists, generals, and everything in between. The issue is these archetypes all function quite differently so trying to shoehorn them all into the fighter gives us a very bland and boring fighter. It also leads to the fighter serving no real purpose that isn't accomplished by some other more specialized class.
At least in 4e the fighter had direction. Sure it angered some people that they couldn't make their particular concept using the "fighter" but each class had its very own niche.
Also WotC (and many posters) seem to think "best at fighting" simply means so the most damage. This is so far from true it is absurd. The base 4e fighter was way "better" at fighting than the 5e fighter simply because it had so much more battlefield control. The rogue may have done more damage, but no one at our tables would ever dare to say he was better at fighting than the fighter. Hell, our wizard in 4e did the least damage of anyone but we all realized she was the most important member of our group in a fight.
Now the 4e fighter wasn't necessarily the be all end all of fighters. Mandatory roles was rather poor design. But sub builds with roles did work. The fighter should be able to be a damage dealer or a protector, but should not necessarily be capable of both at once. I also fancy the idea that the rogue is the Dex based fighter in light armor while the warrior is the Str based fighter in heavy armor. Right now however it seems the "fighter" is determined to be every possible concept at once. The end result is that the fighter serves no real purpose.
The fighter should be the best at using arms and armor to defeat his enemies. Right now that seems to translate into best damage and HP. Those aren't the same however and this is where 5e is failing me.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:15AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2009
|
Big picture:
FIGHTER
Fighters are martial characters that rely on their training with weapons and armor to see them through battle. While all martial characters have some skill with each, Fighters are the best of them all, able to do things with their weapons others can only dream of. The nature of their skills makes them bodily strong and hardy (Strength, Constitution) and they're comfortable in heavier armor than other classes. In battle, they tend to be more direct - they seek out their target and engage them head on, using their superior training to overcome them.
Examples of fighters would be myrmidons, gladiators, and bodyguard. A fighter that is a general often leads because his men respect/fear his power and seek to follow his example.
ROGUE
Rogues are martial characters that use their wits and trickery to gain advantage in combat. They aren't as well-trained or hearty as a fighter or warlord, but they make up for it with their cunning and slipperiness. A rogue rarely chooses to fight fair when they have the option, glad to take any advantage to get the upper hand. And when they get it, they press it mercilessly. Because they have to rely on their wits to survive, they possess a wide range of skills that go outside the boundaries of the other martial classes. Regardless of their special skills, all rogues are agile on their feet (Dexterity) and use that natural ability more than armor to protect themselves.
Examples of rogues would be the cunning duelist, the clever thief, and the pluckish ne'er-do-well. They may or may not follow a code - legal or personal. If a rogue is the leader of men, it is often because they are the smartest, most charismatic, or cleverest of them.
WARLORD
Warlords are martial characters with some skill at weapons and armor. But their real talent lies in using their allies as weapons, coordinating them in battle or pushing them to exceed their natural limits. A warlord is capable of mixing it up when necessary and will typically do so to come to the aid of an ally in danger, but they're usually content to bark out orders and shout encouragement. Warlords are usually brilliant strategists (Intelligence) or dynamic personalities (Charisma), but only the special few are both.
Examples of warlords would be military leaders who command respect due to their magnetic personality or vast experience rather than physical might, the "right hand men" to more powerful figures, or (in the case of the Int/Cha warlord) students of military history.
RANGER
Rangers are martial characters that eschew settled lands to push the boundaries of civilization, either because they feel at home in the wild or because structured society chafes them. They are survivalists - light on their feet, clever in the face of danger, and able to live off the land as needed. Their way of life lends itself to their normal weapon choices - bows and axes - and their skill with one or the other speaks to whether they live as hunters or woodsmen.
Examples of rangers are wilderness guides, hunters, woodsmen, and scouts that serve/protect settlements on the frontiers and fringes of society.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:18AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jan 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.
For so many of those they would have to allow smarts to be used as part of fighting .. but since you know you cant make clever, inspired, precise, tricky, spirited, focused or potent attacks by exploiting perception or intelligence or strength of personality.. It just wont happen its gotta be brute force baby
Your cynicism is not unjustified, as reading the comments in this thread alone make clear. I keep buying into DnDNext's hype, hoping to see them make progress with the system. I don't have a problem with them doing what they need, to bring all Editions to the same table. I'd love to see that. That doesn't mean they need to backslide, though. Or maybe they just need to go further. As I understand it, before the Rogue appeared, the Fighter was also a skilled warrior.
I'll continue voicing my concerns and opinions, and hope that the Fighter class is not regulated to the simple man of violence. If in the end it is though, I know I will not be buying 5th Ed.
I have you beat .. I dont "know" that. Inspite of my/our cynicism Mearles is a big fan of martial classes the ed giving dynamic choices with a feel of tactics is pretty good... they have been putting in subtle limits on spell casters like concentration and if the plan is to make multi-classing easy the fighter and with warlord being somewhere in the mix maybe our concerns can be met in unexpected ways (ok I am being flippy floppy.. )
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:24AM
#20
|
|
|
I don't like fighter as Str warriors and rangers as Dex warriors. I prefer fighters as the weapons and armor warrior. The barbarian as the raw talent warrior. The ranger as the situational and exotic warrior. And the rogue sucking at fighting so they cheat, look for openings, or run like little girls.
I'm in agreement with Orzel. In fact the Rogues I've played go **** and elbows as soon as the situation goes south.
The Fighter is an expert in physical combat. This is the foundation of many, many Fighter archetypes. Ranging from big dumb guy with an even bigger stick to the grizzled mercenary, to a refined warrior poet. Fighter is the class that can be built up in the most ways. It comes with the least fluff and is really a skeleton or frame of mechanics to overlay character on.
Because of this its hard to pigeonhole the class into a simple definition.
|
|
|
