Does D&D need a fighter class?

Giltonio_Santos · Feb 24, 2014

Sage Genesis said:
I agree that there needs to be space in the game for people who want such classes. But isn't it strange that there doesn't seem to be anything other than the Fighter for that? What about people who just want to say "I zap it"? Where is their simple wizard who only gets a beefy at-will zapping cantrip and never anything much more complicated than that?

The argument you're making is not a valid reason for either simplistic fighters nor the presence of fighters in general. It is, however, a valid reason to have simplistic versions of every class - including fighters, wizards, paladins, etc.

Cool, let's advocate that, instead of trying to change/remove from the game the simple fighter because someone can't stand some classes being more about a single thing than the others.

Personally, I believe in the "right to suck". While all classes should be built to allow options in the three pillars of play, players shouldn't be denied the option of only fighting, only exploring or only interacting, if that's what they want to do. As long as this is an actual decision, of course.

Cheers!

Ahnehnois · Feb 24, 2014

Giltonio_Santos said:
Personally, I believe in the "right to suck".

Right to focus? Right to specialize?

Right to suck is kind of a separate issue; some characters are good at X but not at Y, while others really aren't that good at anything (Hello, Bard).

Giltonio_Santos · Feb 24, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
Right to focus? Right to specialize?

Right to suck is kind of a separate issue; some characters are good at X but not at Y, while others really aren't that good at anything (Hello, Bard).

I defend all those rights, and more.

btw, we have a bard in our DnD Next group, and he does just fine. Some buff, some heals, some fight, some cause fear... Both the player and the rest of the group enjoy and see the character as a great addition to the party. In our bill of rights, the bard represents the right of not being best at anything...

Cheers!

Halivar · Feb 24, 2014

Let's not forget that in 1E, paladins and rangers were not just fighters in the archetypical sense, but also class-wise where were definitively "fighter+", and received specialization bonuses as if they were fighters. This includes, if I'm not mistaken, double-specialization from UA.

Quickleaf · Feb 24, 2014

The assumption that players who want a simple character class choose fighter is not a sound assumption. It's only true because past versions of the fighter have been designed very simply compared to other classes. So it's an expectation of the rules thing, not necessarily a play style thing in and of itself.

I agree with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], that there should be simple versions of the core 4 classes.

I also think there is room for more complex versions of all 4, including the fighter.

I am particularly curious about your assertion [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] that a character class isn't based on what a character can do that others cannot. That seems counter-intuitive to me... I mean that's pretty much exactly how thief abilities worked, how cleric spellcasting, and wizard spellcasting worked in older editions. I mean, no one else but the cleric can Turn Undead, right? Maybe you could explain what you mean?

the Jester · Feb 24, 2014

Derren said:
If the only thing you can do can be done equally well by everyone else it is not much of an definition.

So let's make sure that fighters fight the best.

Halivar said:
Let's not forget that in 1E, paladins and rangers were not just fighters in the archetypical sense, but also class-wise where were definitively "fighter+", and received specialization bonuses as if they were fighters. This includes, if I'm not mistaken, double-specialization from UA.

Sorry, this is inaccurate. In 1e, only fighters- and only single-classed fighters, at that!- could use weapon specialization or double specialization.

Ahnehnois · Feb 24, 2014

Quickleaf said:
I am particularly curious about your assertion [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] that a character class isn't based on what a character can do that others cannot. That seems counter-intuitive to me... I mean that's pretty much exactly how thief abilities worked, how cleric spellcasting, and wizard spellcasting worked in older editions. I mean, no one else but the cleric can Turn Undead, right? Maybe you could explain what you mean?

Distinctions which have largely disappeared, and in my view should go completely. 2e had a variety of classes with partial thief skills, 3.0 made them available to anyone with the skill points to spare, and 3.5 took away exclusive skills. Stealth, scouting, and thievery are hardly the exclusive province of the thief at this point. Like I said, magic would be the exception that proves the rule.

It's also not how any of the martial classes ever really worked. Rangers, paladins, and even barbarians just do things that fighters, rogues, and druids can do, but combined in various ways.

Quickleaf · Feb 24, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
Distinctions which have largely disappeared, and in my view should go completely. 2e had a variety of classes with partial thief skills, 3.0 made them available to anyone with the skill points to spare, and 3.5 took away exclusive skills. Stealth, scouting, and thievery are hardly the exclusive province of the thief at this point. Like I said, magic would be the exception that proves the rule.

It's also not how any of the martial classes ever really worked. Rangers, paladins, and even barbarians just do things that fighters, rogues, and druids can do, but combined in various ways.

So would you describe "classes with options no one else outside of the class can do" as backwards design, no matter what?

That seems to suggest a classless system or at least one which leans heavily on the importance of feats.

Or are there certain abilities it is appropriate for a class to have exclusively?

doghead · Feb 24, 2014

steeldragons said:
I was working under the assumption it is intended to be interpreted as "the head of the dog"

Exactly. Which is how I used to sign off until I got lazy and abbreviated it.

thotd

doghead · Feb 24, 2014

n00bdragon said:
Why would a game support a character class without any defining features or skills? Without faith, culture, or particular skill, you're just the guy who refused to take a class. The fighter becomes the class for people who didn't want a class.

Or for people who don't want to be straight-jacketed into a particular version of the fighter. Why do I need to have the character's faith or culture hard wired into the mechanics of the character? If I want those elements, I can write them into the background.

thotd

Does D&D need a fighter class?

Giltonio_Santos

Hero

Ahnehnois

First Post

Giltonio_Santos

Hero

Halivar

First Post

Quickleaf

Legend

the Jester

Legend

Ahnehnois

First Post

Quickleaf

Legend

doghead

thotd

doghead

thotd

Similar Threads