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="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7148711" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>Hola! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> You as well.</p><p></p><p>Just for clarity - since this may be a longer conversation! - I want to state my premise:</p><p></p><p>The 5e Fighter works adequately as is, seems pretty popular overall, and consensus is it's relatively balanced (by whatever metric you use). I agree with all of that. Also. I love playing Fighters, but have consistently felt like the promise of the fighter in the fiction never quite played out in the game.</p><p></p><p>I'm asserting that "The Fighter Fights" design theory is fundamentally flawed because it neglects a whole other dimension to the Fighter class that has been excised from D&D without replacing it with something substantive. I believe it's possible to challenge "The Fighter Fights" and add to the Fighter's design without demolishing what's come before. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Using the Rules Cyclopedia (BD&D) as an example, I respectfully disagree, sir!</p><p></p><p>Let's start with the narrative stuff before getting into mechanics. In the class descriptions from the Rules Cyclopedia, ONLY the fighter's class description mentions leadership. Specifically:</p><p></p><p>[SECTION]<strong><em>Rules Cyclopedia, p. 16</em></strong>Fighters may advance as high as 36th level. Their rapid advances, both in combat ability and in their amount of hit points, make them natural leaders in human settlements, especially small ones. High level fighters spend a lot of their time training and leading men-at-arms, clearing the wilderness of monsters, and expanding human settlements.[/SECTION]</p><p></p><p>Now, your counterargument is <strong><em>"Yeah, that's just fluff. EVERYONE in BD&D got roughly equal name-level features that made them political players."</em></strong></p><p></p><p>Is that true?</p><p></p><p>The BD&D <strong>Cleric</strong> gets to choose, at 9th level, whether to be land-owning (in which case you get some loose guidelines on getting help from a church paying for your stronghold, and some lower level cleric assistants), or to be traveling (no mechanics are given for this, just fluff about preaching in the countryside or towns).</p><p></p><p>Let's compare that to the BD&D <strong>Fighter</strong>, who gets a similar choice whether to be land-owning (loose guidelines about getting a land deed from a lord, basically the same level of detail as the cleric), or to be traveling (and oh boy is this different than the cleric!). What's interesting about the choice of Paladin / Knight / Avenger for <em>traveling</em> fighters is that the involve swearing fealty – a Paladin must swear fealty to a church, and a Knight must swear fealty to a prince, king, or emperor, and even a chaotic Avenger must make an alliance with a chaotic church.</p><p></p><p>You want to run a 9th level fighter who has no ties to any kings or temples? That doesn't <em>exist</em> in BD&D. For other classes it does, but not for the fighter. They're intrinsically wedded to the feudal system of the implied setting, unlike any other character class.</p><p></p><p>Now, you may wonder <strong><em>"Yeah, but QL you've picked BD&D. For example, AD&D didn't differentiate the fighter like that at all!"</em></strong></p><p></p><p>I invite you to look at the follower charts in the AD&D 2e PHB. Let's compare 4 classes – Cleric, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.</p><p></p><p>[SECTION]<strong>Cleric:</strong> At 8th level, a cleric attracts 20-200 fanatic followers of 0th level by establishing a temple.</p><p>At 9th level, a cleric can receive official support to build a temple at 1/2 price, but gain no other benefits/followers from doing so.</p><p></p><p><strong>Fighter:</strong> At 9th level, the fighter attracts men-at-arms by establishing a castle and lands (10-40 well-equipped infantry or cavalry of 0th-level). The fighter is specifically called out as being able to tax these lands. Additionally, the fighter gets elite troops (10-30 mounted knights, elven fighter/mages, rangers, archers, or infantry shock troops of 1st level) and a sub-commander to lead them (5th-7th level fighter with magic items).</p><p></p><p><strong>Paladin:</strong> The paladin doesn't gain followers.</p><p></p><p><strong>Ranger:</strong> Rangers can build castles, forts, or strongholds, but do not gain any special followers by doing so. </p><p>At 10th level, a ranger attracts 2d6 followers (from black bears to fighters to weretigers).[/SECTION]</p><p></p><p>What's interesting is that the language for the fighter is decidedly different from the cleric (who also gets a bunch of followers, albeit lesser trained than the fighter), and is the only class in the AD&D 2e PHB to reference things like taxing and governing lands. While the difference is a little blurred with the cleric, it's very pronounced with other warrior-types like Paladin and Ranger. Clearly, the high-level Fighter is occupying a different role in the campaign world than them.</p><p></p><p>IMHO this establishes that the story arc for Fighters in BD&D and AD&D is "becoming a feudal lord."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, if you're not convinced by my examples above, then - well, that's a wrap, as they say. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>However, I'd further suggest that because other classes have multiple vectors of baked-in identity (e.g. take the Ranger), that the loss of strongholds & followers as part of the game affected the Fighter to a much greater degree (since strongholds & followers was the one vector of baked-in identity for Fighters).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Lol. I'm having flashbacks to The Gods Must Be Crazy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, what I meant was that that narrative of all those different names set a bar for me. It gave me an expectation...that I never felt was fulfilled. OK, as a fighter, I can inspire people like Hiawatha did...well, sure I could, if I role-played it (or made the right proficiency check). OK, as a fighter I can do some amazing sword tricks like Sinbad in the old movies...well, maybe, if the DM happened to be using the maneuvers options and was generous in his interpretations of my crazy ideas. OK, but people are going to know about me and maybe suggest I had divine parents like Perseus or Alexander the Great...if the DM said so, or maybe once you were high enough level.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's the wrong question. <em>Everyone</em> in D&D fights. Heck, a rogue even fights with just weapons...they just do it from behind. What differentiates warrior traditions, in my understanding, is (a) cause, and (b) technique.</p><p></p><p>The better questions to ask are: </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em>Why</em> does a fighter fight harder? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em>How</em> does a fighter fight better? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And are those answers substantively different from other classes in D&D?</li> </ul><p></p><p>For example, you might say: <strong><em>"Well, your cause - saving peasants or gold & glory - is up to you to decide, just like everyone else..."</em></strong> So there's no substantive difference. At least in BD&D at 9th level you got to choose who/what you were fighting for and that had some effect on your character's abilities & role in the world.</p><p></p><p>For example, you might say: <strong><em>"Well, a fighter chooses a Fighting Style, that's how..."</em></strong> But so does a Paladin and a Ranger. Not substantively different. You might say: <em><strong>"Well, a fighter attacks more often, and can use those attacks to Grapple, Shove, etc..."</strong></em> That's getting warm, IMHO, but not quite there as the low-level differentiation is sporadic due to Action Surge's limited use. IIRC at least in BD&D the fighter had some maneuvers only it got access to (possibly the dwarf did too).</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying I want to go back to BD&D and its assumptions. I'm illustrating that BD&D was addressing the right questions. What I'd like to see is a modern fighter class designed with those 3 questions in mind.</p><p></p><p>.........Total aside: I did a "Water for the World" 5k race for Matt Damon's charity and we carried 9 lbs plastic bags of water, which at the end were given to the Veterans Without Orders non-profit for their next mission. I'm not saying this is a direct parallel to D&D, but to me it's an example of the broader skillsets warriors have and the broader social context they exist in.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd be curious to know your thoughts on those 3 questions. Are they the right questions to ask? And, if so, how would you answer them for the PHB fighter?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I used to be very into external martial arts (my "knucklehead days", as I call them), so I know exactly what you mean. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> That's a good example of branching out the fighter's design in a way that supports a broader conception of what it means to be a fighter, without undermining the flexibility of the class or its existing features.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7148711, member: 20323"] Hola! :) You as well. Just for clarity - since this may be a longer conversation! - I want to state my premise: The 5e Fighter works adequately as is, seems pretty popular overall, and consensus is it's relatively balanced (by whatever metric you use). I agree with all of that. Also. I love playing Fighters, but have consistently felt like the promise of the fighter in the fiction never quite played out in the game. I'm asserting that "The Fighter Fights" design theory is fundamentally flawed because it neglects a whole other dimension to the Fighter class that has been excised from D&D without replacing it with something substantive. I believe it's possible to challenge "The Fighter Fights" and add to the Fighter's design without demolishing what's come before. Using the Rules Cyclopedia (BD&D) as an example, I respectfully disagree, sir! Let's start with the narrative stuff before getting into mechanics. In the class descriptions from the Rules Cyclopedia, ONLY the fighter's class description mentions leadership. Specifically: [SECTION][B][I]Rules Cyclopedia, p. 16[/I][/B]Fighters may advance as high as 36th level. Their rapid advances, both in combat ability and in their amount of hit points, make them natural leaders in human settlements, especially small ones. High level fighters spend a lot of their time training and leading men-at-arms, clearing the wilderness of monsters, and expanding human settlements.[/SECTION] Now, your counterargument is [B][I]"Yeah, that's just fluff. EVERYONE in BD&D got roughly equal name-level features that made them political players."[/I][/B] Is that true? The BD&D [B]Cleric[/B] gets to choose, at 9th level, whether to be land-owning (in which case you get some loose guidelines on getting help from a church paying for your stronghold, and some lower level cleric assistants), or to be traveling (no mechanics are given for this, just fluff about preaching in the countryside or towns). Let's compare that to the BD&D [B]Fighter[/B], who gets a similar choice whether to be land-owning (loose guidelines about getting a land deed from a lord, basically the same level of detail as the cleric), or to be traveling (and oh boy is this different than the cleric!). What's interesting about the choice of Paladin / Knight / Avenger for [I]traveling[/I] fighters is that the involve swearing fealty – a Paladin must swear fealty to a church, and a Knight must swear fealty to a prince, king, or emperor, and even a chaotic Avenger must make an alliance with a chaotic church. You want to run a 9th level fighter who has no ties to any kings or temples? That doesn't [I]exist[/I] in BD&D. For other classes it does, but not for the fighter. They're intrinsically wedded to the feudal system of the implied setting, unlike any other character class. Now, you may wonder [B][I]"Yeah, but QL you've picked BD&D. For example, AD&D didn't differentiate the fighter like that at all!"[/I][/B] I invite you to look at the follower charts in the AD&D 2e PHB. Let's compare 4 classes – Cleric, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. [SECTION][B]Cleric:[/B] At 8th level, a cleric attracts 20-200 fanatic followers of 0th level by establishing a temple. At 9th level, a cleric can receive official support to build a temple at 1/2 price, but gain no other benefits/followers from doing so. [B]Fighter:[/B] At 9th level, the fighter attracts men-at-arms by establishing a castle and lands (10-40 well-equipped infantry or cavalry of 0th-level). The fighter is specifically called out as being able to tax these lands. Additionally, the fighter gets elite troops (10-30 mounted knights, elven fighter/mages, rangers, archers, or infantry shock troops of 1st level) and a sub-commander to lead them (5th-7th level fighter with magic items). [B]Paladin:[/B] The paladin doesn't gain followers. [B]Ranger:[/B] Rangers can build castles, forts, or strongholds, but do not gain any special followers by doing so. At 10th level, a ranger attracts 2d6 followers (from black bears to fighters to weretigers).[/SECTION] What's interesting is that the language for the fighter is decidedly different from the cleric (who also gets a bunch of followers, albeit lesser trained than the fighter), and is the only class in the AD&D 2e PHB to reference things like taxing and governing lands. While the difference is a little blurred with the cleric, it's very pronounced with other warrior-types like Paladin and Ranger. Clearly, the high-level Fighter is occupying a different role in the campaign world than them. IMHO this establishes that the story arc for Fighters in BD&D and AD&D is "becoming a feudal lord." Now, if you're not convinced by my examples above, then - well, that's a wrap, as they say. ;) However, I'd further suggest that because other classes have multiple vectors of baked-in identity (e.g. take the Ranger), that the loss of strongholds & followers as part of the game affected the Fighter to a much greater degree (since strongholds & followers was the one vector of baked-in identity for Fighters). Lol. I'm having flashbacks to The Gods Must Be Crazy. Ah, what I meant was that that narrative of all those different names set a bar for me. It gave me an expectation...that I never felt was fulfilled. OK, as a fighter, I can inspire people like Hiawatha did...well, sure I could, if I role-played it (or made the right proficiency check). OK, as a fighter I can do some amazing sword tricks like Sinbad in the old movies...well, maybe, if the DM happened to be using the maneuvers options and was generous in his interpretations of my crazy ideas. OK, but people are going to know about me and maybe suggest I had divine parents like Perseus or Alexander the Great...if the DM said so, or maybe once you were high enough level. That's the wrong question. [I]Everyone[/I] in D&D fights. Heck, a rogue even fights with just weapons...they just do it from behind. What differentiates warrior traditions, in my understanding, is (a) cause, and (b) technique. The better questions to ask are: [list][*][I]Why[/I] does a fighter fight harder? [*][I]How[/I] does a fighter fight better? [*]And are those answers substantively different from other classes in D&D?[/list] For example, you might say: [B][I]"Well, your cause - saving peasants or gold & glory - is up to you to decide, just like everyone else..."[/I][/B] So there's no substantive difference. At least in BD&D at 9th level you got to choose who/what you were fighting for and that had some effect on your character's abilities & role in the world. For example, you might say: [B][I]"Well, a fighter chooses a Fighting Style, that's how..."[/I][/B] But so does a Paladin and a Ranger. Not substantively different. You might say: [I][B]"Well, a fighter attacks more often, and can use those attacks to Grapple, Shove, etc..."[/B][/I] That's getting warm, IMHO, but not quite there as the low-level differentiation is sporadic due to Action Surge's limited use. IIRC at least in BD&D the fighter had some maneuvers only it got access to (possibly the dwarf did too). I'm not saying I want to go back to BD&D and its assumptions. I'm illustrating that BD&D was addressing the right questions. What I'd like to see is a modern fighter class designed with those 3 questions in mind. .........Total aside: I did a "Water for the World" 5k race for Matt Damon's charity and we carried 9 lbs plastic bags of water, which at the end were given to the Veterans Without Orders non-profit for their next mission. I'm not saying this is a direct parallel to D&D, but to me it's an example of the broader skillsets warriors have and the broader social context they exist in. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on those 3 questions. Are they the right questions to ask? And, if so, how would you answer them for the PHB fighter? I used to be very into external martial arts (my "knucklehead days", as I call them), so I know exactly what you mean. ;) That's a good example of branching out the fighter's design in a way that supports a broader conception of what it means to be a fighter, without undermining the flexibility of the class or its existing features. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Fighter
Top