So, the true hardcore fans of the game are already nitpicking over certain corner cases such as "There should be an archer Fighter!" or "The Warlord should be a sub-class of the Fighter!" or again "The Fighter should change its role and feel depedning on the weapons used!".
I've taken these corner cases and tried to apply them to the other martial classes, minus the Warlord, since we're trying to prove that it can be a sub-class too (although as of now, D&D Next has it as a base class).
See what I've found out.
The Archer Case:
- Ranger (Default and traditional class for the case) -> "Hunter"
- High moblity
- Many many arrows (high rate)
- Long distance, and/or hit and run.
- Rogue -> "Sniper"
- Sneaky
- Few arrows but deadly and "don't know what hit me"
- Fighter (Hypthesis) -> "Archer"
- Low mobility
- Few arrows, but strong and well-aimed (low rate)
- Either short distance, or long distance but not moving very much.
The Warlord Case:
- Ranger -> "Commando"
- Teaches others how to take advantage from terrain and be a bit like Rangers.
- Rogue -> "Chief Thief"
- Teaches others roguish tricks, how to fight dirty and be a bit like Rogues.
- Fighter -> "Classic Warlord"
- Teaches tactics, "teaches war", teaches others to be a bit like Fighters.
So, are you getting what i got from all this? The Fighter can be anything, not justa defender. What truly distinguishes it from others is its way of thinking and its area of expertise.
- Rangers are defined by their taking advantage of terrain, being very high mobility and basically hunting out the most difficult enemies, the ones that re difficult to reach. They are best if hitting and running, either in pursuit of the prey or letting the prey engage them in a hopeless pursuit.
- Rogues are defined by their dirty tricks in a fight and their sneakyness, they are very good in cramped environments (and urban ones) where they can use their acrobatics and guile. They are best if not seen.
- Fighters are defined by their fighting "the right way". They fight in the open, they want to reach the middle of the fight or bring it where they are, and they use tactics, resilience and weapons/armor to overcome every fight. They are best if they're well seen by everyone and if they manage to stick in the middle of things or decide where the middle fo things is (where they are).
Here's the true answer. Yes, you can even have an Archer Fighter, and if you can have a Leader Fighter, then you can have a Leader Rogue and a Leader Ranger as well. The roles are all possible, it's how they accomplish their role that should really define classes. And Fighters have a strong identity in this, that works best when the other martial classes have other strong identities themselves.
Note that the "mindset of the Fighter" is that of moving less and hitting more. And this is something that could make it an "easy class for beginners". They tend to reach the fight and then stick to it, or in the case of Archers (only hypothetical), they'd tend to stick to one place and firing. Of course, this is not at all where the Fighter would end, since the Fighter would compensate for its "straightforwardness" with complex tactical thought. I see the Fighter as the most Intelligent of the martial characters, thinking tactics, taking advanatge from their knowledge of war and art of fighting. While Rangers rely on Wisdom more, and Rogues rely on... Well, anything that works.
If you ask me, the Paladin and the Barbarian are the classes truly in conflict with the Fighter. And the Warlord too. I see the Paladin as nothing much more then a divine Fighter, and the Barbarian a primal Fighter, whereas the Warlord is a leader Fighter.
But I also think these classes have their identities defined by other things. After all, the how they accomplish things may be based on their power source too, which should dramatically change the feel of the class to make it worth it.
About the Warlord, well... I'd just make it a "default leader Fighter package" in the Basic version of the rules, making it clear later that it's just a subclass.
If they really want to make it a class, then they should find strong differences from the Fighter identity and mechanics, and it could be at the expenses of both classes.
What do you think?
Note that the "mindset of the Fighter" is that of moving less and hitting more. And this is something that could make it an "easy class for beginners". They tend to reach the fight and then stick to it, or in the case of Archers (only hypothetical), they'd tend to stick to one place and firing. Of course, this is not at all where the Fighter would end, since the Fighter would compensate for its "straightforwardness" with complex tactical thought. I see the Fighter as the most Intelligent of the martial characters, thinking tactics, taking advanatge from their knowledge of war and art of fighting. While Rangers rely on Wisdom more, and Rogues rely on... Well, anything that works.
If you ask me, the Paladin and the Barbarian are the classes truly in conflict with the Fighter. And the Warlord too. I see the Paladin as nothing much more then a divine Fighter, and the Barbarian a primal Fighter, whereas the Warlord is a leader Fighter.
But I also think these classes have their identities defined by other things. After all, the how they accomplish things may be based on their power source too, which should dramatically change the feel of the class to make it worth it.
About the Warlord, well... I'd just make it a "default leader Fighter package" in the Basic version of the rules, making it clear later that it's just a subclass.
If they really want to make it a class, then they should find strong differences from the Fighter identity and mechanics, and it could be at the expenses of both classes.
What do you think?
