Does D&D need a fighter class?

[Hussar]

No it wouldn't. All those other classes come with baggage that sometime you don't want.

thotd

Pretty much this. If I want to play a pirate, for example, a fighter should fit the bill. After all, a pirate shouldn't really have too much in the way of stealth abilities, nor lock picking and whatnot. He certainly shouldn't have any magical abilities. So, what do we have left.

And, [MENTION=8243]doghead[/MENTION], I've seen you end your posts with thotd before. What does it mean?

 

[Sage Genesis]

In my opinion, fighter suffers because it lacks an archetype. It's not clear who he is and what he does (other than "fighting", but that's something everybody in D&D does anyway) - so the class stays generic and flavorless.

I'd happily get rid of fighter.

And if not, the class should be given a strong identity. Including some out of combat activities at which the fighter is definitely the best.

They tried that in 4e, where Fighters were highly aggressive "defender" characters. Arguably in earlier editions they had lots of followers. Either one could be considered archetypal.

As for the question, yes D&D needs Fighters. In 4e they delayed the gnome and the Druid by one year and some people were going ballistic over it. (I've seen things, man...) Can you imagine cutting out the Fighter entirely?

Besides, the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger do have fairly specific archetypes. Which means that if you want a kind of warrior who falls outside those (soldiers, non-divine knights, pirates, etc.) you'd need to invent a whole new class for each. Because those were typically handled with Fighters in the past.

 

[delericho]

Yes, D&D needs the Fighter. It's a sacred cow.

What might be interesting, though, would be rolling the Rogue into the same class, and allowing players to customise their characters anywhere on that scale.

 

[doghead]

And, [MENTION=8243]doghead[/MENTION], I've seen you end your posts with thotd before. What does it mean?

It means 'doghead'

BTW, I like the quote in your signature, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. D&D (role play games in general) are a social activity. There is an implicit social contract - the right of participation comes with the responsibility to do so in a considerate and respectful way. The quote is a nice succinct express of this contract.

thotd

 

[steeldragons]

And, @doghead , I've seen you end your posts with thotd before. What does it mean?

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

 

[n00bdragon]

but I think the guy whose main attribute is swinging a sword (and not any kind of faith, culture, or out of combat skill) has to be there.

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.

There should be a class for people who want to play a hard hitting meat head, but the fighter isn't even that. To design such a class you can't start with "how can we make a generic guy who can be shoe horned into a thousand different roles." You need to start with "how can we make a hard hitting meat head". Call him the clobberer or something. Same goes for the pirate or the sell-sword. These can be classes all on their own without overlapping features or reducing them to feats. Even better you can now package classes with appropriate settings, so a high seas campaign can have classes like pirate or castaway or swashbuckler or whatever while a high fantasy campaign could have your typical shonen protagonist next to the wizard and the cleric while a low fantasy campaign could be populated entirely with sell swords and highwaymen with nary a wizard in sight.

The fighter is a square peg in a game that has adapted and morphed over the years to be a game of round holes. The longer you force it simply because it's a sacred cow, the worse and worse it's going to fit.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why would a game support a character class without any defining features or skills?

Fighting is a skill, and it is a defining feature.

The fighter is a square peg in a game that has adapted and morphed over the years to be a game of round holes. The longer you force it simply because it's a sacred cow, the worse and worse it's going to fit.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting instead. Of course it's a sacred cow. Classes are a sacred cow. We might be better off without them altogether, but I don't see that the fighter is really any more of a problem than "guy who uses magic" or "guy who has skills" or "guy who plays music". They're all pretty vague and pretty easy to criticize.

 

[n00bdragon]

Fighting is a skill, and it is a defining feature.

Except it's not. There are lots of classes that can fight. This is pretty much a requirement if you're not going to win the game forever with spells.

 

[steenan]

They tried that in 4e, where Fighters were highly aggressive "defender" characters. Arguably in earlier editions they had lots of followers. Either one could be considered archetypal.

Fighter with a lot of followers is fine.
4e fighter was a step in a good direction and in combat it played well - but still had no interesting out of combat role.

As for the question, yes D&D needs Fighters. In 4e they delayed the gnome and the Druid by one year and some people were going ballistic over it. (I've seen things, man...) Can you imagine cutting out the Fighter entirely?

You know... I'm one of the people more likely to criticize 4e for not going far enough than for going too far with its changes.

Besides, the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger do have fairly specific archetypes. Which means that if you want a kind of warrior who falls outside those (soldiers, non-divine knights, pirates, etc.) you'd need to invent a whole new class for each. Because those were typically handled with Fighters in the past.

If you want fighter to be the "everything we don't have fun rules for" class, don't be surprised when fighter sucks.

The strong point of class-based systems is describing specific archetypes. If a game is to support a wide range of varied character concepts, instead of funnelling players into archetypes, a skill-based, classless system is much better. And a system with player-defined traits (aspects, distinctions etc.) beats even that.

 

[Mistwell]

If D&D wants to continue being D&D then yes, it needs a fighter class. One may add whatever classes are desired to the mix but fighter, cleric, and magic user are core to the game.

Agreed. It's a sacred cow that cannot be slain without such dire ramifications that it won't be D&D for a huge swath of people.

Much like if you eliminate hit points, and armor class.