Kill the fighter

[Derren]

Fighters were Defenders, sure. And damage dealing machines. Depending on the build they ranged from 'one of the more dangerous defenders' to 'striker level damage.' Fighters hurt things. Badly.

And yet they are always either sword & shield or 2 handed weapon user (with splatbook). The same way the ranger is either an archer or a 2 weapon fighter.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Good grief no -- we need the fighter. All those specialists still don't replicate the average grunt, the doughty man-at-arms with sword and shield and spear who is the primary defense against the monster hordes.

 

[jbear]

Previous edition encouraged specialization (or in the case of 4E made it the only way to play).

What are you talking about?

So in 4E WotC decided to add anime magic to the fighter.

What are you talking about?

To make the fighter in 5E viable you either have to continue with anime nonsense

Whatever it was you were trying to say ... well you lost me...

To be honest, the way you talk about the 4e fighter does very little to convince me you even know what you are talking about. It sounds like you've heard someone who didn't know what they were talking about and regurgitated their misinformed opinion.

In 4e the fighter smacks things. He stands in the middle of a fight and makes it difficult for his or enemies to concentrate on anything but him because if they do ... well he smacks them again.

You do not HAVE to specialise you fighter to remain effective at being that. In fact it is possible to build your fighter as a weapon master.

anime magic .... pft ...

 

[Gadget]

I think the original post may be on to something here. Not that fighters are bad, they are just an overly broad archetype, that gets most 'mundane' things (at least combat related) lumped in. It can be nice to have mechanically different "mundane" classes that fit the warrior role like Essentials' Knight and Slayer. It need not proliferate into a gazillion narrow subtypes, not if done well. After all, there is a reason that most the splat books have YAW (Yet Another Wizard) syndrome. There is a lot of design space to do cool things in combination with magic system to make new and interesting classes and archetypes. With warrior types, it is usually: yeah, just pick a fighter and these special feats, that's got that covered (unless it involves adding a dash of magical ability). Or, you can go back to 1e where you have classes that were "like a fighter, just better" (i.e. Paladin & Ranger), and the fighter was the consolation prize for not rolling high enough stats.

That being said, I doubt if anything like that will be done with the fighter in D&DN; it would be too controversial.

 

[jbear]

And yet they are always either sword & shield or 2 handed weapon user (with splatbook). The same way the ranger is either an archer or a 2 weapon fighter.

Not only do you over simplify but you are wrong actually.

The brawler uses a one handed weapon and keeps the other hand free. If you take certain feats you can use that free hand to hurl hand axes or javelins, strangle foes and pin them, or if you take the weapon master power you can switch between all types of axes, swords spears and maces.

The fighter can also be built to be a two weapon fighter.

Or a battle rager ...

Or ... yeah, basically the list goes on.

SO you have now confirmed that your knowledge of the 4e fighter is very very limited.

 

[Derren]

SO you have now confirmed that your knowledge of the 4e fighter is very very limited.

And you have confirmed that you tend to defend 4E before thinking.
We are talking about this in the face of a new edition, a edition which will be defined by its core rules and not dozens of splatbooks which are required in 4E to broaden the scope of the fighter.

Just looking at the core rules of 4E the scope of each class was very limited. Does 5E continue this focus? If yes then fighter does indeed need a little overhaul to define its role better.

 

[Dausuul]

No, by third I mean third. The question is not about a race and class combination, but about a class.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Actually, by third you mean "third among gamers devoted enough to come vote in polls on gaming sites." That's a very unrepresentative sample, and I would expect it to skew in favor of the more complex, strategically deep classes such as wizard.

We don't know how popular the fighter is across the hobby as a whole, but as I say, I suspect those polls understate it.

 

[Klaus]

No, by third I mean third. The question is not about a race and class combination, but about a class.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Despite your poll, the Fighter is the most common class among CB users.

 

[jbear]

Look Derren, the way you phrase yourself, attacking 4e with derogatory comments like "anime rubbish" is totally off base.

I can assure you I think before I post, and I can also assure you I don't defend 4e for the sake of it.

If someone says something as if they actually knew about it when their own words betray the fact that they obviously don't then I will comment on it.

I know what the discussion is about. Thank you.

If you want to express your opinion, do so in a way that doesn't make you appear as someone ignorant of what they are talking about or insulting.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

In general, the most popular of anything seems to be the most generic and bland option. Coke/Pepsi for soda, vanilla for ice cream / pudding, regular hershey bar is the most popular chocolate bar, plain potato chips...

Fighter is the vanilla of D&D. It's not very good, but it's so lacking in style and flavor as to be immune to outright hatred (except from anti-establishment types) and is thus the most popular thing to the masses.