I had considered that it could make a good monk ability, but I don't think it's exclusive to their domain. You might find a small handful of classes that deserve it, but the fighter definitely does.
Well, I just noticed that Brock, your ideal "fighter" goes around in cloth armor or no armor, uses mostly unarmed and simple weapon (dagger) attacks, and does quite a lot of acrobatic jumping around. If you look up the clip The Only Weapon You'll Ever Need he actively insults "sword guys".
He really sounds more like a re-fluffed monk than a fighter.
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it."
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
You've clearly never heard a 20th level fighter boast about how all he needs are his knives and his nuts. And then proceed to back it up by slaughtering a whole bunch of people.
A Level 1 Fighter vs a bunch of mooks. And yes, that's him at Level 1. You want to see him at high level, take a look at this thread, and check out the Post-Eclipse stuff. The anime only covered the first arc, and that's practically a prequel to the meat of the story.
You've clearly never heard a 20th level fighter boast about how all he needs are his knives and his nuts. And then proceed to back it up by slaughtering a whole bunch of people.
On one hand the Fighter has always been way too overarching in the realm of fighting -- I don't mind having warrior who goes for melee and ranged, but just about every martial class could be placed as "Fighter" if that were the case -- while on the other hand it wouldn't "feel" right if the Fighter couldn't really go for the bar brawler style of character.
Personally I'd say any full frontal class -- Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Monk -- should all be able to go unarmed and do somewhat decently. TheMonk would be the guy who specializes in a certain set of fighting styles, same with the Fighter who brings his own set of fighting styles, etc. Each fighting style would bring with it various dynamics that allow you to retain the "feel" of the character, even if the ultra-basic mechanics would remain the same; for instance, perhaps all of them would use basic attacks, but the Fighter would use Expertise Dice, the Monk would use Combo Techniques, the Ranger would use Fighting Stances, the Barbarian would use Rages, and the Paladin would have Prayers, Exultations or Divine Intercessions. Perhaps the Expertise Dice have limitations, the Combo Techniques require a successive use of various abilities, the Fighting Stances modify the basic attack directly, the Barbarian enhances the character (indirectly boosting basic attacks), and the Paladin might end up using spell-like prayers that could boost his attacks. Maybe the Rogue could have Ambush Tactics that allow you to take advantage of surprise, distractions and deception (unlike his more straightforward bretheren).
That way, the weapon you have would not matter as much as the character you're playing. So if you want to play as Mr. Rip-Off-Your-Heads-With-My-Fists Dan (Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin), or Mr. Silently-Break-Neck George (Rogue, Assassin, Monk), or any other character concept involving unarmed, all would be valid, with the differences mainly being how you go about fighting unarmed (something best left for the specific details of each class).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Knowing what goes on in the manga, is it wrong of me to say that the actual anime was a way better piece of storytelling? And yeah, Gatsu is an amazing representation of a classic fighter, tbh I'm kicking myself for not thinking of him sooner, as Berserk is my second favorite anime of all time, right behind Iria, and Record of Lodoss War is right behind Berserk in 3rd. Orson should be the representative for the barbarian.
@Chaosfang: Do you have a superpower to either a, read my mind, or b, get smarter with every post you make? You wouldn't believe how many people I have played with that have said the martial characters should all be able to do well, not necessarily based on their weapon, but on their class method, who they are. They have in fact specifically mentioned unarmed fighting and tavern brawls in those conversations.
If Fighter A has a longsword, and Fighter B has a longsword-shaped stick, then Fighter A should still be doing better than Fighter B.
Hey, now. Miyamoto Musashi won plenty of duels with a bokken when against a sword.
Yes, but clearly he was a higher level than his enemy and that became more significant than the weapon he was using. Saying he was better than another guy using a bokken doesn't mean he wasn't less dangerous with the bokken than with a real sword.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
IIRC, 4e's Dark Sun setting had a Fighter build that got a sort of Improved Improv, becoming proficient with improvised weapons and dealing more damage with them. Also, some of the current maneuvers are useful for improv. Snap Shot/Jab can be used to follow up an improvised action (i.e. pushing a boulder over, cutting a rope, etc.) with a low-damage attack. I, for one, am all for an option for Improved Improv. Maybe as part of a Drunken Master prestige class...
Knowing what goes on in the manga, is it wrong of me to say that the actual anime was a way better piece of storytelling? And yeah, Gatsu is an amazing representation of a classic fighter, tbh I'm kicking myself for not thinking of him sooner, as Berserk is my second favorite anime of all time, right behind Iria, and Record of Lodoss War is right behind Berserk in 3rd. Orson should be the representative for the barbarian.
@Chaosfang: Do you have a superpower to either a, read my mind, or b, get smarter with every post you make? You wouldn't believe how many people I have played with that have said the martial characters should all be able to do well, not necessarily based on their weapon, but on their class method, who they are. They have in fact specifically mentioned unarmed fighting and tavern brawls in those conversations.
Neither, I'm just drawing from my experiences and desires. I actually play a Brawler Fighter (4E) as well as an unarmed Swordsage (3.5E, in this 2E/3E hybrid campaign), so that's basically two unarmed warrior concepts already -- one does skull-cracking straight up no mystical BS, another adds fire and shadow techniques to face-breaking like a pseudo-magus monk -- and frankly while I appreciated how 4E did the Dark Sun gladiator-type I-Can-Use-Any-Weapon sort of character mechanics, it's rather sad that just about every edition had to go through all that muck just to make A) unarmed warrior, and B) improv master, mechanically sound character concepts.
Which is why I prefer the Gamma World 7E and 13th Age routes of "pick your weapon, reflavor as you wish" over the "historically [in]accurate with multitude of rules" method often employed.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Regarding giving fighters proficiency with improvised weapons: I believe fighters are already proficient with all weapons. The main problem is, as I read the Improvised Weapon text (not the chart entry but the text), that the fighter who uses an improvised melee weapon doesn't get their strength bonus to the attack roll. I'd also like to point out that none of the improvised weapons, not even the ranged one, has a listed or suggested range.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
I had considered that it could make a good monk ability, but I don't think it's exclusive to their domain. You might find a small handful of classes that deserve it, but the fighter definitely does.
Well, I just noticed that Brock, your ideal "fighter" goes around in cloth armor or no armor, uses mostly unarmed and simple weapon (dagger) attacks, and does quite a lot of acrobatic jumping around. If you look up the clip The Only Weapon You'll Ever Need he actively insults "sword guys".
He really sounds more like a re-fluffed monk than a fighter.
6 of 1, half-dozen of the other, really. One could also easily say that Brock is a fighter with armor refluffed into dodging, and that his huge knife is more of a shortsword than a dagger.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
