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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 7550409" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>Speaking for myself, yes I absolutely am interested in solutions. Years back, I took a sincere stab at <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior" target="_blank">redesigning the fighter</a>. I encountered design challenges that I didn't have the time/resources to resolve, but that didn't deter me from seeking solutions.</p><p></p><p>Based on their survey and a series of polls on ENWorld (lost in the crash) and RPG.Net, I believe design of the fighter class is definitely working OK enough for most players. However, I’d like it to be better than OK. If someone asked, “How’s your performance at your job?” “OK enough.” “How’s your relationship?” “OK enough.” I’d like it to be great. I’d like it to be the best fighter we’ve seen in any edition with wide appeal.</p><p></p><p>Here's my own copy of the (now lost, sadly) fighter polls, dated 6-19-2016:</p><p></p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/gyXeH0F.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The "fighters fight" argument is a slippery slope. On the one hand, yes, it's absolutely true - fighters do fight. On the other hand, it's turning a blind eye to ALL others D&D characters also fighting. And several D&D classes have overlapping features with the fighter allowing them to fight in similar ways (Extra Attack & Fighting Style)...so they're not even fighting in some uniquely masterful way.</p><p></p><p>Finally, it only looks at the fighter in it's current 3e+ incarnation, without drawing upon the many years of history the class had prior to that. "Fighter as baron/lord." In other words, fighting <em>isn't</em> the only thing fighter class did, dating back to very early in D&D. The design choice to cut the other part of the fighter's identity away and not introduce anything to take its place was just that: a design choice. If that choice <em>hadn't</em> been made, I sincerely wonder whether "fighters - it's in the name" would even be a part of the dialogue.</p><p></p><p>This is why, in my own redesign, I encouraged players/DMs to hear "warrior" when someone says "fighter", to shift the focus toward a more holistic identity, rather than one entirely defined between the confines of rolling initiative.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really fit into any of those three categories, so perhaps I represent a 4th criticism? It could be summed up as "the fighter needs identity, a lens through which new players can view the worlds of D&D."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's one possible reason for it's popularity. </p><p></p><p>Another is that "fighter" is an archetype – independent of any mechanics – that resonates with a lot of players.</p><p></p><p>Another is that it's mechanically attractive. It would be fascinating to see data pertaining to the <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/" target="_blank">last class/race survey</a> distinguishing single-class fighters from multi-class fighters. In that particular survey, "characters with multiple classes count once for each class" irrespective of how many levels they had in each class.</p><p></p><p>Speaking personally, I like to run fighters because the archetype appeals to me, yet I find the 5e treatment to be <em>sufficient</em> but not <em>great</em>. It's the closest I can get to what I'd lean toward in 5e, but it's still off the mark (for me). My historical experience running fighters was that I mostly had fun running fighters <em>in spite of</em> the class mechanics (thanks to stepping up my role-playing), not because of them, not inspired by them. 5e just ever so slightly moved that dial for me, but I'd like to see it developed much further.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that's a fair comment when looking outside of an archetype, say, going from "fighter" to "holy champion" or "thief." Kinda related, but they are also distinct archetypes that may involve an undesired narrative for a player looking for a non-magical non-shady "fighter" type.</p><p></p><p>I don't know...<em>isn't</em> significant variance in how a class plays from table-to-table at least an item of concern worth further inquiry? One of the objectives of game design is to minimize undesirable variances among play groups, while encouraging desirable creative/stylistic variances, right?</p><p></p><p>EDIT: As an aside, when you describe out-of-combat abilities as "buttons to push", I think that's assuming a bit more than you want to about out-of-combat abilities needing to be actively managed. For example, druids have the Druidic language – it's not a "button to push" yet it has inspired & contributed to some fascinating out-of-combat scenarios in my games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7550409, member: 20323"] Speaking for myself, yes I absolutely am interested in solutions. Years back, I took a sincere stab at [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior]redesigning the fighter[/url]. I encountered design challenges that I didn't have the time/resources to resolve, but that didn't deter me from seeking solutions. Based on their survey and a series of polls on ENWorld (lost in the crash) and RPG.Net, I believe design of the fighter class is definitely working OK enough for most players. However, I’d like it to be better than OK. If someone asked, “How’s your performance at your job?” “OK enough.” “How’s your relationship?” “OK enough.” I’d like it to be great. I’d like it to be the best fighter we’ve seen in any edition with wide appeal. Here's my own copy of the (now lost, sadly) fighter polls, dated 6-19-2016: [img]https://i.imgur.com/gyXeH0F.png[/img] The "fighters fight" argument is a slippery slope. On the one hand, yes, it's absolutely true - fighters do fight. On the other hand, it's turning a blind eye to ALL others D&D characters also fighting. And several D&D classes have overlapping features with the fighter allowing them to fight in similar ways (Extra Attack & Fighting Style)...so they're not even fighting in some uniquely masterful way. Finally, it only looks at the fighter in it's current 3e+ incarnation, without drawing upon the many years of history the class had prior to that. "Fighter as baron/lord." In other words, fighting [I]isn't[/I] the only thing fighter class did, dating back to very early in D&D. The design choice to cut the other part of the fighter's identity away and not introduce anything to take its place was just that: a design choice. If that choice [I]hadn't[/I] been made, I sincerely wonder whether "fighters - it's in the name" would even be a part of the dialogue. This is why, in my own redesign, I encouraged players/DMs to hear "warrior" when someone says "fighter", to shift the focus toward a more holistic identity, rather than one entirely defined between the confines of rolling initiative. I don't really fit into any of those three categories, so perhaps I represent a 4th criticism? It could be summed up as "the fighter needs identity, a lens through which new players can view the worlds of D&D." That's one possible reason for it's popularity. Another is that "fighter" is an archetype – independent of any mechanics – that resonates with a lot of players. Another is that it's mechanically attractive. It would be fascinating to see data pertaining to the [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/]last class/race survey[/url] distinguishing single-class fighters from multi-class fighters. In that particular survey, "characters with multiple classes count once for each class" irrespective of how many levels they had in each class. Speaking personally, I like to run fighters because the archetype appeals to me, yet I find the 5e treatment to be [I]sufficient[/I] but not [I]great[/I]. It's the closest I can get to what I'd lean toward in 5e, but it's still off the mark (for me). My historical experience running fighters was that I mostly had fun running fighters [I]in spite of[/I] the class mechanics (thanks to stepping up my role-playing), not because of them, not inspired by them. 5e just ever so slightly moved that dial for me, but I'd like to see it developed much further. I think that's a fair comment when looking outside of an archetype, say, going from "fighter" to "holy champion" or "thief." Kinda related, but they are also distinct archetypes that may involve an undesired narrative for a player looking for a non-magical non-shady "fighter" type. I don't know...[I]isn't[/I] significant variance in how a class plays from table-to-table at least an item of concern worth further inquiry? One of the objectives of game design is to minimize undesirable variances among play groups, while encouraging desirable creative/stylistic variances, right? EDIT: As an aside, when you describe out-of-combat abilities as "buttons to push", I think that's assuming a bit more than you want to about out-of-combat abilities needing to be actively managed. For example, druids have the Druidic language – it's not a "button to push" yet it has inspired & contributed to some fascinating out-of-combat scenarios in my games. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
Top