What is a 'Fighter'?

[Raven Crowking]

I was reading the "How to politely say your character sucks" thread, and that is exactly the argument there for why, although everyone "needs" an 18 in their primary stat, in-game reality is not hurt by it.

Actually, I think the farther one abstracts, the better 4e becomes. If I could just abstract far enough, it would probabably become my game of choice. YMMV.


RC

 

[Squizzle]

Classes are a purely metagaming construct designed for player use. In my game world, there is no concept of a "class". People have jobs and they can be referred to as such. The captain of the guard or the army sergeant is never referred to as a "fighter" or a "warlord". Similarly, the king's wizard may mechanically be a warlock, a sorcerer, or even an invoker or shaman.

In an Iron Kingdoms game, another PC kept referring to my character as the "gunmage" like I was wearing a sign. Drove me crazy.

I'd look to themes in the upcoming Dark Sun books as a form of mechanic more tightly bound to in-setting elements. A human gladiator fighter is probably a gladiator on Athas; a dwarf Veiled Alliance sorcerer and a dwarf templar warlock are easily indistinguishable to someone in the setting, insofar as both are short dudes who use magic, but have occupations or lifestyles that set them apart.

 

[Axolotl]

I was reading the "How to politely say your character sucks" thread, and that is exactly the argument there for why, although everyone "needs" an 18 in their primary stat, in-game reality is not hurt by it.

How exactly would having an 18 in your primary stat ever harm the in-game world?

 

[Snoweel]

How exactly would having an 18 in your primary stat ever harm the in-game world?

I think he means the idea that every adventuring party contains only characters that are absolute paragons of one of the 6 ability scores is a verisimilitude-shattering coincidence.

I agree, however just like how 4e has redefined the relative power of character levels (i.e. a level is no longer as powerful as it was in previous editions) it has also redefined an 18 in an ability score as the human maximum (though 3e already did this with ability score increases every 4 levels).

This is further reinforced by 4e's decoupling of NPCs from PC generation mechanics - if I wanted a human NPC who was 'the strongest man in the kingdom' - an absolute hulking freak who can barely straighten his arms - I could just give him a 25 STR (and maybe a 6 DEX) despite only making him 'low heroic tier' (roughly level 1-4) in power.

I think a lot of the criticism of 4e comes from the long-held baggage of assumptions carried over from previous editions; assumptions that don't necessarily apply to the new edition.

Sure the standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) leads to just about every character having an 18 in an ability score but an 18 in 4e doesn't necessarily mean what it did in 2e (where a score of 18(00) was effectively a score of 23).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pretty much.

I agree that a lot of the criticism of 4e comes from the long-held assumptions carried over from previous editions; assumptions that don't necessarily apply to the new edition. You have to treat it like a whole different game, IMHO. The less you apply those assumptions; the better a game it is.


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

What they are depends on which edition.

Fighters in D&D/AD&D were guys wearing heavy armour (normally) and wielding weapons. Normally strong, normally close combat focussed. And outstanding with weapons. But that's about all you could say about them.

In 4e fighters aren't the people who hit the hardest with melee weapons. (That would be barbarians or possibly rangers). They aren't the most accurate. (Rogues and Avengers both beat them). What they are at low levels is the hard eyed guys that no one ever dares turn their back on because if you give them even a small opening they will exploit it. At high levels they are dangerous enough that they are a central pole around which the entire fight revolves.