Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7148386" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Hey there, old bean. Been a while! Nice to "see" you again.</p><p></p><p>I will take issue with this assertion. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Fighters were not "feudal lords." They were guys who fight...who, maybe, after however many levels, might build a stronghold and, yes, attract followers and mercenaries and the like. Like everyone else.</p><p></p><p>I believe in BECM (at the "C" point) you were, literally, just given/made a "Baron" but who was really playing BECMI at "C"? Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings all also became "lords" among their people. Clerics could build strongholds and attracted followers too (who didn't have to be paid, no less! iirc) Thieves got their hideouts and mages their towers with limited followers/apprentices. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But there wasn't really ever a "I'm going to be a fighter because I want to be a feudal lord/that's the lord-class" built in to the class. Strongholds and followers were an automatic part of both B- & AD&D...for almost all classes. Certainly all of the original "big 4" [or "big 7" if you are talking Basic and count the demihumans]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. I get the argument you're trying to make. I simply disagree with the premise. The Fighter had no "void" to fill. Certainly not by losing what every other class was getting [some version of] as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't disagree, here. And making subclasses based on flavor are certainly easier (and more fun <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> than making them based around mechanics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As is generally the way. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. I'm not sure I see what you're saying here. This is precisely what I am asserting. The Fighter class IS supposed to be any/all of these characters (and many more). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright...ya know I enjoy a thought-experiment.</p><p></p><p>So...(and in answer to your query above, yes, it would, actually, make sense to say "a Warrior Wars." That's precisely what that means. But anyway, I'm happy with...) "A Warrior fights." That is their purpose. Whether it is for defense or conquest or glory or cash is immaterial. They fight...otherwise, what kind of warrior are they?</p><p></p><p>So, "The Warrior" class needs to be able to attack and deal damage effectively. Be able to attack, with weapons, more often and/or for more damage than other classes. Extra Attacks and Fighting Styles seems to have these bases covered. Granted, however, that farming these out to Pally's and Rangers, as well as Barb's and Monks getting Extra Attacks as well, makes all of that seem significantly less "Fighter-special/specific."</p><p></p><p>The "Warrior" need to be able to "take a hit." They need to be able to maintain and withstand a prolonged conflict when other classes would need to end/submit or retreat [or die]. Their higher HD and the Second Wind feature seem to have covered this base.</p><p></p><p>Given that the Warrior is a class dependent on their use of arms and their physical strength, then some measure of ability with their physique seems appropriate. I am amazed that it took us 8 [or 10 depending on who you ask] iterations and editions to end up with something like "Remarkable Athlete" and I think that type of feature suits the [base] Fighter-Warrior class beautifully.</p><p></p><p>It all seems fairly self-evident...and what we have already been presented with in the PHB.</p><p></p><p>My own homebrewed system's Fighter class (and I have wrestled with shifting the class name to Warrior, myself, many many times) includes a low level feature that provides interaction bonuses with other warrior types (of similar disposition/alignment) and warrior/battle-dominant cultures that are of lower level than the PC, "Veteran's Camaraderie." Basically, my thinking was, warriors are going to have a degree of implicit or explicit respect for other "brothers-in-arms." Those who have seen the horrors of war and know the ways of the battlefield. Ya know...how Jocks and Military Guys are [often] with each other IRL. So a minor bonus to interaction rolls didn't seem out of place...and wasn't a "combat-related feature" thing.</p><p></p><p>I guess that's all I've got in the thought experiment for now...whether "Warrior" or "Fighter" or "Wielder of the Sharp & Pointy."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7148386, member: 92511"] Hey there, old bean. Been a while! Nice to "see" you again. I will take issue with this assertion. :) Fighters were not "feudal lords." They were guys who fight...who, maybe, after however many levels, might build a stronghold and, yes, attract followers and mercenaries and the like. Like everyone else. I believe in BECM (at the "C" point) you were, literally, just given/made a "Baron" but who was really playing BECMI at "C"? Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings all also became "lords" among their people. Clerics could build strongholds and attracted followers too (who didn't have to be paid, no less! iirc) Thieves got their hideouts and mages their towers with limited followers/apprentices. But there wasn't really ever a "I'm going to be a fighter because I want to be a feudal lord/that's the lord-class" built in to the class. Strongholds and followers were an automatic part of both B- & AD&D...for almost all classes. Certainly all of the original "big 4" [or "big 7" if you are talking Basic and count the demihumans] Yes. I get the argument you're trying to make. I simply disagree with the premise. The Fighter had no "void" to fill. Certainly not by losing what every other class was getting [some version of] as well. I don't disagree, here. And making subclasses based on flavor are certainly easier (and more fun ;) than making them based around mechanics. As is generally the way. ;) Yes. I'm not sure I see what you're saying here. This is precisely what I am asserting. The Fighter class IS supposed to be any/all of these characters (and many more). Alright...ya know I enjoy a thought-experiment. So...(and in answer to your query above, yes, it would, actually, make sense to say "a Warrior Wars." That's precisely what that means. But anyway, I'm happy with...) "A Warrior fights." That is their purpose. Whether it is for defense or conquest or glory or cash is immaterial. They fight...otherwise, what kind of warrior are they? So, "The Warrior" class needs to be able to attack and deal damage effectively. Be able to attack, with weapons, more often and/or for more damage than other classes. Extra Attacks and Fighting Styles seems to have these bases covered. Granted, however, that farming these out to Pally's and Rangers, as well as Barb's and Monks getting Extra Attacks as well, makes all of that seem significantly less "Fighter-special/specific." The "Warrior" need to be able to "take a hit." They need to be able to maintain and withstand a prolonged conflict when other classes would need to end/submit or retreat [or die]. Their higher HD and the Second Wind feature seem to have covered this base. Given that the Warrior is a class dependent on their use of arms and their physical strength, then some measure of ability with their physique seems appropriate. I am amazed that it took us 8 [or 10 depending on who you ask] iterations and editions to end up with something like "Remarkable Athlete" and I think that type of feature suits the [base] Fighter-Warrior class beautifully. It all seems fairly self-evident...and what we have already been presented with in the PHB. My own homebrewed system's Fighter class (and I have wrestled with shifting the class name to Warrior, myself, many many times) includes a low level feature that provides interaction bonuses with other warrior types (of similar disposition/alignment) and warrior/battle-dominant cultures that are of lower level than the PC, "Veteran's Camaraderie." Basically, my thinking was, warriors are going to have a degree of implicit or explicit respect for other "brothers-in-arms." Those who have seen the horrors of war and know the ways of the battlefield. Ya know...how Jocks and Military Guys are [often] with each other IRL. So a minor bonus to interaction rolls didn't seem out of place...and wasn't a "combat-related feature" thing. I guess that's all I've got in the thought experiment for now...whether "Warrior" or "Fighter" or "Wielder of the Sharp & Pointy." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Fighter
Top