The Fighter's Identity

[Crazy Jerome]

I know it has issues, but I keep coming back to the answer of making the fighter an almost skill monkey (to the degree that a character can be a skill monkey in Next, of course):

• Wizard - arcane master, some skills, bit of arms
• Cleric - divine master, some skills, bit extra arms (presumably because arcane trumps divine magic somewhat and extra arms mainly defensive focus)
• Rogue - decent with arms, some skills, then master of sneaky skills on top of that.
• Fighter - arms master, some skills, and then some more skills.

Where the "some skills" is the baseline that everyone gets, and in Next terms is including actual skills, ability scores, and any other background, class, or theme abilities that are helping in what we would generically call "skills" outside of magic or combat. In any case, once you've defined that baseline for all characters, rogues get that plus mastery of their "roguish skills" while fighters get that baseline plus some extra stuff that fits. In 3E terms, you'd give the fighter 6 ranks per level.

How that mechanically works out in Next, I can only guess. It might be as simple as giving the fighter an extra background instead of an extra theme. Isn't that essentially what we are saying when we talk about giving the fighter mounted abilities or leadership abilities or whatnot? Why not let the fighter pick that second thing that interests him?

Or if you want to look at it from the simulation point of view, what did these characters do with their development time? Every adventurer starts with some basic weapon ability and some basic skills by virtue of being a PC. On top of that:

• The wizard focused on the extremely hard and potent arcane magic.
• The cleric focused on divine magic and staying alive long enough to use it in the thick of a fight.
• The rogue focused on honing and expanding those basic skills to cover being sneaky, and some offensive arms to stick a knife in an unsuspecting back.
• The fighter finished mastering arms and then ... ?

If I'm thinking fantasy stories, I think the fighter learned to sail or ride or trade or any number of things--because he had the time to do it, and it was the type of stuff that naturally came up while he was out fighting.

 

[steeldragons]

Random thoughts:

- Every cleric can heal. A cleric with the Herbalist theme heals better.
- Every wizard can cast spells. A wizard with the Magic-User theme casts more.
- Every rogue can hide. A rogue with the Lurker theme hides better.

If we assume those to be true, how about this:

Fighters know strategy and warfare, to some extent. By choosing different themes, a Fighter can focus on mastering a weapon (Weaponmaster), defending his companions (Guardian) or leading his allies in combat (Warlord). He remains competent in the other aspects, but gets to develop one further.

Makes complete sense to me. The Warlord, moreso than just about any other "class" alleged to be incorporated in 5e, smacks of "Theme" to me. Put the couple of special Warlord tricks in the packet of feats (since that's all that "class" is, preferably without the "yelling you healed" nonsense) and make it a Theme. It's a practically perfect fit.

I see no reason it would have to be limited to a "Fighter" class...but since I imagine specialist mages and priests will be limited by class, no reason not to give the Fighter/martial classes a couple of their own. I could see a Ranger warlord or a Paladin warlord...why not, right? [incidentally, I could also easily see a "Barbarian warlord" but I'm heartily on the bus of Barbarian/Berserker should be a Theme also...so not sure how you'd work that out.]

--SD

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's the part where a dragon dies in a single round, thanks to a single special ability, that made me choke a bit on my coffee.

Save or die?

 

[Doug McCrae]

What if the Fighter could be not only the best at beating the tar out of his opponents with weapons, but also have an innate understanding of tactics, morale?

The big problem I see is a lot of people seem to want the fighter to be a super-simple class, with no more options than 'attack'.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The question then becomes:

Do you want a Warlord class?

If you want a warlord class, strategy, tactics, inspiration, and quick commands are obviously the warlord's schtick. Leadership, charisma, and empowerment are warlord things. The fighter might be able to dip her toes in but, as a class, she'll need something else.

If you ditch the warlord (or make it a theme, or whatever), you open up that space for the fighter to take.

If you want to keep the warlord around as a unique class, you need the Fighter to do other stuff.

Some ideas:

• Fighters Know Their Opponents: Fighters know that red dragons breathe fire, that basilisks shouldn't be looked at, and how to heal snake venom. They know the fighting style of the Free City Assassin's Guild and the haunt of the Lost Island Pirates. They have their ears to their ground, and their knowledge network is vast. If you want to know about troglodyte mating habits, ask a wizard. If you want to know how to stop them from killing your townsfolk, ask a fighter. He knows about their stench. He knows about their low technology. He knows about their aversion to sunlight.
• A Fighter Has An Armory: Wizards have their libraries of tomes. Fighters have their armories of equipment. Rods, maces, hammers, axes, cudgels, swords, bows, gauntlets, daggers, and more...exotic equipiment are at a fighter's disposal. Much like a wizard might choose a particular spell for a particular enemy, a fighter will choose a particular weapon or armor. The fighter knows before she leaves her tower that the shield is going to be useful against the Medusa, and that the morningstar will crush the undead. The Fighter can work her sword to pierce dragonhide, or forge a spear to hold enough heat to burn a troll, or to add plating to her chainmail that protects against a dragon's breath. Any halfling can whip around a sling, but it takes a fighter to know that a sling is best employed against giants, since their soft heads are vulnerable to small stone wounds, and, if she aims it right, she can knock the creature over effectively, with only the stone.
• A Fighter is a Hero of the People: Arcane magic takes "The Talent" and divine magic takes "The Calling," and those rogues are disreputable, dishonest, and dispicable, but a fighter...regardless of her actual Charisma...is honored. They are respected for who they are and what they represent: that anyone can become powerful, with enough drive and dedication. The Warlord might marshal troops to his side, but a Fighter will control villages and kingdoms with a sheer force of heroic might. The people are loyal to her: she is one of them. The reason the half-orc crushing the goblet is intimidating isn't because the half-orc is Very Strong, it is because the half-orc is a Fighter, and just displayed that fact, earning instant respect.
• A Fighter Is Never Unprepared: "That rust monster dissolved my armor? Screw that. I wrestle it to the ground, wrap a leather leash around it, and make it take me to the biggest source of metal within its' weird antenna-scent." Fighters aren't easily surprised, and aren't easily disarmed. A wizard without their book is useless, a cleric with their symbol is handicapped, a rogue without a dagger or tools is a sitting duck, but a fighter without a sword, or without armor, or without a magic belt? Heck, all you've done is turned your death into one delivered by slowly by naked fist, rather than quickly by cold steel.
• A Fighter inspires loyalty in others: It is just difficult to betray the trust of a Fighter. This might lead to loyal mounts, loyal dogs, loyal allies, loyal sidekicks, etc., but it might also just mean that when a fighter goes to sleep, it's hard for the party rogue to stab him and take his pouch, and it's hard for the assassin who has him convinced that she's his old childhood friend to kill him, and it's hard not to want to follow him into the darkest dungeons on earth, even if you hate his guts.
• A Fighter is a Courageous Trailblazer: When exploring a dungeon, a fighter either already knows the answer, or has such power that the "wrong" answer doesn't pose much of a threat. The fighter is the first out the door, the front of the line, the one for whom the darkness holds no trepidation. Some may consider this the confidence of the uneducated, the bliss of the ignorant, but a fighter knows himself, and he knows that he can handle any unexpected trap or pitfall or goblin that he encounters. The Warlord might "lead from the rear" (heh), but it's the fighter whose steadfast reliable courage makes it possible to go down into the dark below.

Possible mechanics:

• Fighters automatically know one true bit of combat lore against any enemy they are fighting.
• Fighters can customize their equipment during an extended rest in certain limited ways (think things like Materia Slots: they get to add elements, attacks, and statuses to their attacks)
• Fighters get options with weapons and armor that other characters don't get (only Fighters get extra crit with a Pick, only Fighters can topple with a sling stone, only Fighters deal extra damage on a charage with a spear).
• Fighters get Advantage on any Charisma checks when dealing with "common folk."
• Fighters can Inspire Trust or Inspire Fear in any one NPC, once per day. That NPC will not willingly take hostile action against the fighter for that day.
• Fighters gain Advantage on any Strength or Constitution checks they make as part of a stunt.
• Fighters gain Advantage on saves against fear.
• Fighters gain Advantage on any save that they are the first in the party to make.
• Fighters can ignore the consequences of one failed save once per day.

It still flirts with some Warlord territory, but I think it's pretty distinct.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The big problem I see is a lot of people seem to want the fighter to be a super-simple class, with no more options than 'attack'.

This is, IMO, the biggest problem facing the fighter.

 

[AngryMojo]

I think the biggest problem is that the fighter encompasses too broad a range of archetypes. It may be the least focused class in the game, it's supposed to cover a non-ranger archer, a non-paladin knight, a non-rogue fencer as well as a man at arms, city guardsman, mercenary swordsman, brute muscleman, military commander etc. The fighter's only universal defining feature is that he fights. When your entire class description focuses on a single pillar, and something that everybody in the game does, you run into design problems.

This is why, God help me, I'd like to see the fighter broken up into different classes. Building a "Knight" class or a fencer, soldier or thug makes the design much easier and gives the class more of an identity. Knights engage in diplomacy and courtly activity, fencers can have the charismatic rake about them, soldiers can be the tacticians who know all about logistics and thugs can work in the shadows and be all intimidating. I kind of see "fighter" as being more like "arcanist" than "wizard." The latter implies a specific form of magic, while the former implies a very large category of magic. We don't seem to have a problem with multiple ways to cast arcane or divine magic bleeding over into an archetype that covers all three pillars, why does there seem to be a perceptive problem when you add this to the fighter?

I think the most logical approach would be either have a small number of broad classes with multiple sublclasses each, or define the fighter as one specific archetype and introduce other classes to fill the remaining styles. WotC has stated that all the classes that have appeared in previous PhB's will be in the game, so we'll likely have Cavaliers, Warlords and even Barbarians. All could be sublclasses under the fighter umbrella, or they could fill seperate archetypes and make the fighter something specific.

I support the sublcass idea more than anything else, for some reason there's a huge amount of backlash from some crowds whenever a term is "redefined" by WotC. It also speaks to a bit more modularity, as those who want a simpler game can say "no subclasses" or subclasses themselves can be a module.

 

[Dragoslav]

Agreed. Rangers, paladins, warlords, assassins... if there's one class that shouldn't be a class......................... it's the fighter.

EDIT: Although by this point I have no delusions that they would implement "subclasses" this far into development, especially after all of the hullabaloo they've made over how themes and backgrounds are going to solve everything.

 

[Gadget]

Uhmm... you know Mike Mearls made the statement that they were leaning towards making the Warlord a Theme right now that anyone could take. You could have a wizard warlord, a ranger warlord, etc. Obviously that is not set in stone and feedback could change that, but I agree that it opens up quite a bit of design space for the fighter if it holds true.

 

[Vikingkingq]

[*] Fighters Know Their Opponents
[*] A Fighter Has An Armory
[*] A Fighter Is Never Unprepared

I like these themes especially, as they emphasize the skill and intelligence of a trained and experience martial combatant as opposed to the Fighter being a brainless muscle-man. A Fighter that knows themselves, and their opponents should be formidable in combating monsters that would be incredibly difficult for someone who's never left the training barracks - although I'm not quite sure how to represent this mechanically.

I also like the idea of the Fighter as a melee McGuyver who actually has a reason for carrying around all those different weapons, using his arsenal like a pro's golf bag - "hmmmm...this ogre isn't wearing armor and is pretty slow, hand me the greatsword....this Stone Golem is going to blunt my longsword, better get out the pickaxe."

[*] A Fighter is a Hero of the People:
[*] A Fighter inspires loyalty in others:
[*] A Fighter is a Courageous Trailblazer:

I like these things as linked components - Fighters are brave warriors who unflinchingly go toe to toe with terrifying monsters and abominations beyond the ken of men. This conspicuous heroism inspires the common folk in unique ways; to most, Wizards are strange and dangerous forces, Clerics and Paladins are "in this world, yet not of it," Rogues are more infamous than famous, Bards are there to tell stories about heroes and tend to be rather rogueish as well, etc.