Evolution of the Fighter

[RFisher]

Unless your arguing the numbers don't matter (in which case, D&D is no better than Cops & Robbers; "Bang! You're dead." "No I'm not." "Yes you are...") then a fighters mechanical limitations DO come into play.

D&D is most certainly better than C&R! It has a DM whom the players have agreed to be the final arbiter. Thereby solving the only flaw in C&R. While I have to admit to enjoying having additional rules, the farther we get from C&R+DM, the more we lose what is unique about D&D/RPGs and fall closer to all the other mundane games. IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Hmph...

-Rehashing all the mechanics from 1st to 3.5 Edition, and then comparing to 4E-

Well...none of them are 'true' fighters in the first place. Never was.

Yes, I can say that, after 22 years playing.

 

[pemerton]

So the fighter being boring is apparently all in how the RPG mechanics make it look.

As Mustrum said upthread, Yes.

Giving lectures is (IMO) interesting - it's a part of my job I usually enjoy. The idea of playing an RPG about giving lectures doesn't sound that exciting to me, however - and if someone at the Forge did invent a clever RPG of academic lecturing, I'm pretty sure that the things that would make it interesting would not have much in common with the things that actually make giving a lecture interesting. (Similarly, whatever it is that is interesting about playing Monopoloy, I know from experience it is nothing like what is interesting about actually bidding at auction to purchase a house.)

If RPGing a fighter is to be interesesting, good game design is required. The mere fact that acutally fighting is interesting is obviously not enough, because playing an RPG is not actually fighting (or giving a lecture, or buying a house . . .).

 

[Lanefan]

If RPGing a fighter is to be interesesting, good game design is required. The mere fact that acutally fighting is interesting is obviously not enough, because playing an RPG is not actually fighting (or giving a lecture, or buying a house . . .).

Except that it is, if only in your imagination. In fact, it's better, because if I was fighting with a sword in real life, given my complete lack of skill with such things, I'd get carved to ribbons in seconds; whereas in the game I can see myself (or my character) winning.

Lane-"I'm a 10th level Fighter. My player isn't."-fan

 

[pemerton]

Except that it is, if only in your imagination. In fact, it's better, because if I was fighting with a sword in real life, given my complete lack of skill with such things, I'd get carved to ribbons in seconds; whereas in the game I can see myself (or my character) winning.

Well, except that part of what makes fighting exciting in real life is the adrenalin that flows when you realise you might be carved to ribbons. Playing a game doesn't necessarily generate excitement in that way - it has to do it some other way, such as by engaging the emotions in a more subtle way, or by engaging the intellect.

 

[Runestar]

D&D is most certainly better than C&R! It has a DM whom the players have agreed to be the final arbiter. Thereby solving the only flaw in C&R.

Not always. The effectiveness of this arbitration is really only as effective as the degree of competency of the DM himself, and the efficacy of his rulings.

I feel it is still better to have a properly designed mechanical framework for the fighter (and all other areas as well), to save the DM the hassle of having to invoke rule zero, much less agonize over how best to interpret said rule.

At least for me, I feel that just because the DM can invoke rule zero does not necessarily mean that he should.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Except that there is no such thing as a static DC in 4e - the DMG table on page42 even hints as much. You are expected to pit a "fair" DC against your party. And there is still the issue of the party rogue who can and will auto-succeed at it. So there is still no reason for your fighter to even try.

While, in optimal situations, there is no reason not to let the best person at the job do it, there are always in game reasons for the action to occur. [For example, the rogue may be in a cell, and the rest of the party has to try to get him out. The fighter, having an ok dex compared to the rest of the party, stows his shield and has no armor penalty because he's in scale. Without training he's definitely behind the Rogue, but the chance of success is still possible. The rogue was probably beating the normal DCs on a 9 or 10 ... the fighter is going to need something 16 or higher. Hard, but not necessarily impossible.

On top of that, if the fighter really wanted to, he could spend one feat and suddenly have a +5 to his thievery [heck, he may even make it a full blown rogue multiclass and have a short sword ready in case he gets a flank and wants to dish a bit more pain out 1/enc].

Fighter in 4e has a better chance of success and an easier time getting good at the crossclass skill than the 3.5 guy. The "let anyone try" mentality can work in either game ... but 4e has a system that makes it possible for anyone to try.

To give an example - lets look at a 1st lv party, where the elven cleric has managed a +15 perception check (+4wis, +5 trained, +3 skill focus, +2 race, +1 background). There is no way you can meaningfully challenge any other PC in the party. Use a moderate DC, and the cleric auto-succeeds every time (simply by taking 10, considering the pitiful DCs in the PHB). Use a high DC to challenge the cleric, the fighter has no chance of succeeding!

However ... perception [and insight] are some of the only powers where taking 10 is a given. In the case of thievery for pickpocketing ... you would not be able to take a 10. Most DCs are based around someone "getting 10" in it ... this way it's a bit better than 50/50 they'll succeed ... that way someone who is untrained and has at least a 12 in the stat will probably have some chance, albeit a slim one, to succeed.

 

[Darkwolf71]

My prediction, the article tells us how utterly craptastic all previous edition fighters were and how much awesomesauce the 4e fighter brings to the table. I think I'd much prefer an unbiased source publishing this article.

Anyway, off to read it.

 

[justanobody]

My prediction, the article tells us how utterly craptastic all previous edition fighters were and how much awesomesauce the 4e fighter brings to the table. I think I'd much prefer an unbiased source publishing this article.

Anyway, off to read it.

How do you feel your prediction turned out?

 

[JDJblatherings]

Look, here's the rules for Sleight of Hand in 3e (note, pre 3e fighters could NEVER pick pockets at all, couldn't even try.)

Of course they could "try". Bfore the thief class was introduced they'd have had just as good a chance as clerics and magic-users.