The Fighter's Identity

[I'm A Banana]

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 part of this is that classes have changed definition as they have gone through the editions.

The "Magic-User" stated crazy broad. Blood magic, pact magic, dragon magic, faerie magic, demon magic, whatever, everything was the Magic User.

Axe, pike, big, smart, subtle, drunk, swift, or dual, everything was the Fighting Man.

Over the editions, the Magic User's unique mechanics (spellbooks! studying! spell lists!) helped distunguish it from other magic-using classes (like cleric, druid, wu jen, warlock, whatever). They're now bookish magical librarians. A pretty clear schtick.

The fighter had no unique mechanics -- just proficiencies -- so there's nothing that the fighter does with a sword that no one else can do with the sword.

You give someone sword proficiency, and suddenly they're not much different mechanically from the fighter (possibly in depth -- a lower bouns, but not in breadth -- they both do the same thing with it).

That's why part of my solution is to give the fighter unique mechanics. A fighter does things with a sword that no ranger, gish, or paladin can do. Just as a wizard can cast fireball from a spellbook and others cannot.

Without those unique mechanics, a fighter might as well be divided up. With those unique mechanics, they can get an identity all their own.

And I'd advocate for them to beat up the Warlord and take (back) their stuff.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is why, God help me, I'd like to see the fighter broken up into different classes. [...] define the fighter as one specific archetype and introduce other classes to fill the remaining styles.

They did this in 4E, and people, when told that if they wanted to play an archer should select the Ranger class, revolted: "But I want to play a *Fighter*!"

Nonsensical, but true.

 

[AngryMojo]

That's why part of my solution is to give the fighter unique mechanics. A fighter does things with a sword that no ranger, gish, or paladin can do. Just as a wizard can cast fireball from a spellbook and others cannot.

If the fighter is it's own class, I completely agree. The main issue I wind up seeing with design is what does the fighter do outside of combat. Due to the definition of fighter, it pretty much implies a one-pillar class.

There's no class called "explorer" nor is there a class called "interactor," so why use a fighter as only somebody who fights? I have no problem with combat styles being unique to the class, I really hope fighters get something to give them a strong identity. I'm mostly curious to see how this is handled.

They did this in 4E, and people, when told that if they wanted to play an archer should select the Ranger class, revolted: "But I want to play a *Fighter*!"

Nonsensical, but true.

I'm precisely aware of this. I think it really does go to the different definitions of class through editions as Kamikaze Midget pointed out. Magic Users and Clerics became much more specific as editions went by, while Fighters kept their breadth.

 

[Stormonu]

There's no class called "explorer" nor is there a class called "interactor," .

Wouldn't that be rogue and bard respectively?

 

[AngryMojo]

Wouldn't that be rogue and bard respectively?

Only if the rogue doesn't fight or interact and the bard doesn't fight or explore.

Well, the bard really doesn't fight or explore...

Spoony bards...

 

[Gold Roger]

The problem with taking appart the fighter into multiple classes is, that would make a lot of classes.

Let's say at the very least, marksman, knight, swashbuckler, warlord. That leaves a lot of concepts without support.

So we add more and more and more classes. I guarantee you, you'll still have a lot of concepts inculded by "fighting (wo)man" that can't be done without a lot of bending and squinting.

And I also tell you, bringing those splinter classes in line with other classes on the power scale and keeping them varied. Boy, that'll be even harder than the fighter.

Let's keep the fighter and make him a toolbox to make of whatever non-magician weapon swinging guy a player imagines that isn't done well by another class.


Also give me a well done swashbuckler class, because I'm a special snowflake and no matter how customizable DnD classes are, I always found this archetype the hardest to realize

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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'.

And that runs smack into Mr. "I hit hard and takes lots of hits" (the Barbarian). At least in 3e, the Fighter's ceiling on simple damage was held down by the Barbarian class.

The Simple Fighter is possible, but it is going to be something like the Slayer (consistent damage) or the Tank (heavy armor specialist).

 

[Oni]

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'.

The fighter needs to be cleverly designed parallel with the mechanics for improvising actions and the various conditions that can be applied, so that it's simplicity or complexity stems from how you choose to play it. What I'd really like to see is a that gets something like a free attack along with his regular action per round. For the simple folk this just means, okay I attack twice for the complex that want something more complex they can use their Action to impose conditions, gain advantages, whatever and then combo this stuff with their Free Attack. As for bring more complexity out of combat I feel like a lot of that should come from background choices and the simplicity or complexity of it is simply how you choose to leverage your skills, and part of making the fighter simply better at such things than other classes is as simple as giving a plus to rolls having to do with leadership, discerning an enemies intent, et c.

 

[CleverNickName]

Mechanically-speaking, there is very little difference between the barbarian, ranger, paladin, warlord, knight, samurai, etc. I mean, they all have essentially the same stats: they all have a high BAT, martial weapon proficiency, high Hit Dice, physical saves and attributes higher than the mental ones, and all that. These mechanics alone are not enough to make these characters distinct, or even interesting unless you are going for a purely classic "fighter" character class ala BECM or 1E.

But there are differences between them in later editions of the game, however. Some of them are skill-based or flavor differences, such as a variety of wilderness skills for the barbarian and ranger, or strict codes of ethics for the knight, samurai, and paladin. Some differences are mechanical: the barbarian's rage ability, the paladin's special mount, and so on.

So I maintain that all we need is one "fighter class," with a variety of Backgrounds (skills, proficiencies, flavor) and Themes (special abilities, feats) to add as desired. This will allow us to build any of these other "classes" quickly and easily, and with one-tenth the page count.

 

[jadrax]

So I maintain that all we need is one "fighter class," with a variety of Backgrounds (skills, proficiencies, flavor) and Themes (special abilities, feats) to add as desired. This will allow us to build any of these other "classes" quickly and easily, and with one-tenth the page count.

A no ability to customise them.

That means no Barbarian Slayer, no Paladin Guardian and no Ranger Archer.