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
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
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: 7547813" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>I'd like to reply to this. I fall into the "Fighter is deficient" perspective (though "deficient" is a word I'd avoid because it's vague), however I do not fit that typification – I don't think skill checks are necessary to have fun, I actively DM toward <em>quality</em> of rolls rather than quantity, and I believe creativity trumps rolling dice.</p><p></p><p>My perspective is that in modern D&D there's a problem (specifically, something missing) at the concept level of the Fighter class. In older editions, Fighters were explicitly tied to an evolution into "lords" and "barons", with armies and tax revenues. IME this had the effect of driving Fighter PCs to (sooner or later) engage with affairs of state, interact with noble houses, and lead soldiers into battle. It wasn't just an oddity that kicked in at 9th level, but a lens through which the player was encouraged to interact with elements of the campaign world, just as "Rogue" offered its own lens into the campaign world with Thieves' Cant, associating with shady characters, and always looking for the treasure. Yes, the Rogue has Expertise for high skill rolls, but the strong identity imbued in the Rogue's concept doesn't depend on that – it comes from that lens the Rogue class offers players into the worlds of D&D.</p><p></p><p>As play moved away from the strongholds & followers side of things, that part of the Fighter was understandably dropped. However, that removal affected the Fighter more than other classes because Fighters were so iconically tied to the feudal government (that was an assumed part of D&D settings of the era). Nothing was created to fill that void. This left the Fighter's concept as "person who excels at fighting", which really isn't saying anything since Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues also are very good fighting. Even the 5e PHB doesn't really give you a definition of "Fighter", instead resorting to language like:</p><p></p><p>[SECTION]All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.[/SECTION]</p><p></p><p>In other words, reiterating "a Fighter fights."</p><p></p><p>The Fighter is displaced from any culture. A Druid knows Druidic, a secret language, and comes from a circle of like-minded nature-worshippers. A Sorcerer can trace their bloodline (or magical event) to some aspect of the world, as can a Warlock with their otherworldly patron. A Barbarian likely has a tribe, a Rogue also knows a secret language connecting him/her with shady characters in the setting's underbelly, and so on for every other class. But this is no longer true for the Fighter. Its concept lives within the confines of initiative.</p><p></p><p>This is why, back in my old thread, I encouraged a shift in thought – when hearing the name "Fighter", for players and DMs to think "Warrior." Why? Because a warrior implies someone who is familiar with conflict at a much longer scale than "roll initiative", someone who understands the movement and disposition of military forces, who understands how to negotiate for access to resources with varied factions, to bind wounds, to know whether so-and-so marches under the Duke's banner or a mercenary banner, someone who has something to fight <em>for</em> and defend, perhaps even has a whole philosophy pertaining to how they engage in conflict, etc. Warriors imply a place within a culture, specifically that the PC hails from a culture with a warrior caste/class.</p><p></p><p>For me personally, that's where the real issue lies. At the concept level.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: I've noticed very few single-class fighters playing & DMing 5e, compared to other classes which I've seen many single-classed PCs. My <em>hunch</em> is this phenomenon has to do with many players <strong>wanting</strong> identity & a lens providing connection to the world to be part of their PC, and that they often look to the character classes to supply that. Not finding it in the Fighter, they then multi-class. Or, worse, they "dip" into Fighter for a mechanical benefit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7547813, member: 20323"] I'd like to reply to this. I fall into the "Fighter is deficient" perspective (though "deficient" is a word I'd avoid because it's vague), however I do not fit that typification – I don't think skill checks are necessary to have fun, I actively DM toward [I]quality[/I] of rolls rather than quantity, and I believe creativity trumps rolling dice. My perspective is that in modern D&D there's a problem (specifically, something missing) at the concept level of the Fighter class. In older editions, Fighters were explicitly tied to an evolution into "lords" and "barons", with armies and tax revenues. IME this had the effect of driving Fighter PCs to (sooner or later) engage with affairs of state, interact with noble houses, and lead soldiers into battle. It wasn't just an oddity that kicked in at 9th level, but a lens through which the player was encouraged to interact with elements of the campaign world, just as "Rogue" offered its own lens into the campaign world with Thieves' Cant, associating with shady characters, and always looking for the treasure. Yes, the Rogue has Expertise for high skill rolls, but the strong identity imbued in the Rogue's concept doesn't depend on that – it comes from that lens the Rogue class offers players into the worlds of D&D. As play moved away from the strongholds & followers side of things, that part of the Fighter was understandably dropped. However, that removal affected the Fighter more than other classes because Fighters were so iconically tied to the feudal government (that was an assumed part of D&D settings of the era). Nothing was created to fill that void. This left the Fighter's concept as "person who excels at fighting", which really isn't saying anything since Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues also are very good fighting. Even the 5e PHB doesn't really give you a definition of "Fighter", instead resorting to language like: [SECTION]All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.[/SECTION] In other words, reiterating "a Fighter fights." The Fighter is displaced from any culture. A Druid knows Druidic, a secret language, and comes from a circle of like-minded nature-worshippers. A Sorcerer can trace their bloodline (or magical event) to some aspect of the world, as can a Warlock with their otherworldly patron. A Barbarian likely has a tribe, a Rogue also knows a secret language connecting him/her with shady characters in the setting's underbelly, and so on for every other class. But this is no longer true for the Fighter. Its concept lives within the confines of initiative. This is why, back in my old thread, I encouraged a shift in thought – when hearing the name "Fighter", for players and DMs to think "Warrior." Why? Because a warrior implies someone who is familiar with conflict at a much longer scale than "roll initiative", someone who understands the movement and disposition of military forces, who understands how to negotiate for access to resources with varied factions, to bind wounds, to know whether so-and-so marches under the Duke's banner or a mercenary banner, someone who has something to fight [I]for[/I] and defend, perhaps even has a whole philosophy pertaining to how they engage in conflict, etc. Warriors imply a place within a culture, specifically that the PC hails from a culture with a warrior caste/class. For me personally, that's where the real issue lies. At the concept level. EDIT: I've noticed very few single-class fighters playing & DMing 5e, compared to other classes which I've seen many single-classed PCs. My [I]hunch[/I] is this phenomenon has to do with many players [B]wanting[/B] identity & a lens providing connection to the world to be part of their PC, and that they often look to the character classes to supply that. Not finding it in the Fighter, they then multi-class. Or, worse, they "dip" into Fighter for a mechanical benefit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
Top