Does D&D need a fighter class?

[Sage Genesis]

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

That's not even remotely what I'm saying.

Look at it from this perspective: the "wizard' class is profoundly broad, being able to do pretty much anything he wants with the possible exception of healing (depending on edition and supplements used). But does it suck? No. And it shouldn't. And even though the wizard is the poster child of "casting spells" he's not the only one. Some concepts do get put into other, more specialized classes.

The "fighter" class ought to be in a similar position. Fairly broad, some more specialized concepts put into separate classes, and most importantly: shouldn't suck.

The idea that a generalized class is more likely to suck from an effectiveness point of view is completely false. And note that I'm not even talking about "everything we don't have fun rules for", but instead just the core concept of a martial warrior.

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.

All this depends heavily on how the systems are implemented (compare the classes from D&D with those from Alternity or Anima, for example). Your statement assumes far too much.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Except it's not. There are lots of classes that can fight.

Of course they can. I am not aware that any class has a monopoly on anything. But I don't see that it's hard to grasp an archetype of a professional soldier or lifelong streetfighter who really is defined by that and isn't much else. Genre fiction is littered with those types.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, D&D needs a fighter.

The Roman infantryman is neither a ranger, nor a barbarian, nor a paladin. Nor is the guy who is muscle for the local mob yet has no roguey skills himself.

As to making a bazillion classes for every type of fightery archetype, please let's not. I much prefer fewer, broader archetypical classes that can specialize.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

I would be fine with this - even though the rogue is one of my favorites.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, D&D needs a fighter.

But it also needs to support its idea of what the fighter is.

If the fighter is supposed to encompass knights, pirates, watchmen, thugs, bodyguard, and soldiers, then it has to support them.

The issue is that D&D tends to either lock away game element (pre3e) or make dipping within one class ineffective (3e and 4e.).

So you have a fighter that cant do anything but fight unless you roll good for non-Strength. And in 3e, that would not even help you.

 

[MoonSong]

That's not even remotely what I'm saying.

Look at it from this perspective: the "wizard' class is profoundly broad, being able to do pretty much anything he wants with the possible exception of healing (depending on edition and supplements used). But does it suck? No. And it shouldn't. And even though the wizard is the poster child of "casting spells" he's not the only one. Some concepts do get put into other, more specialized classes.

I think you are confusing two different levels on the discussion, yes the wizard is extremely flexible in scope, but has never really been truly generic in the way fighter is. Wizards have always had an implicit out of combat role -being scholars-, regardless of the edition they had always been the guy who just studied reality so hard it broke, sorcerers, bards and warlocks have never been just specialized kinds of wizards, they are different kinds of spellcasters that cover different archetypes wizards don't -gandalf was an angel, merlin was a bard (with sorcerer elements, "my father was a demon" was his excuse for his great power), the medieval witches had patrons, Sabrina/Samantha was born with magic just learned to control it-, none of them were really scholars. Contrast this with the fighter, "Guy who fights and isn't a paladin/ranger/rogue/monk/barbarian"

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The fighter has a very important role in the game. Some people just want to say "I attack", and they need a class too, get over it. DnD Next background/subclass system kind of helps with that. If you just want to say "I attack", be a fighter/soldier/path of the weapon master. If you want anything besides that, the game will probably help you in that regard.

Cheers!

 

[Sage Genesis]

I think you are confusing two different levels on the discussion, yes the wizard is extremely flexible in scope, but has never really been truly generic in the way fighter is. Wizards have always had an implicit out of combat role -being scholars-, regardless of the edition they had always been the guy who just studied reality so hard it broke, sorcerers, bards and warlocks have never been just specialized kinds of wizards, they are different kinds of spellcasters that cover different archetypes wizards don't -gandalf was an angel, merlin was a bard (with sorcerer elements, "my father was a demon" was his excuse for his great power), the medieval witches had patrons, Sabrina/Samantha was born with magic just learned to control it-, none of them were really scholars. Contrast this with the fighter, "Guy who fights and isn't a paladin/ranger/rogue/monk/barbarian"

Obviously the generic-ness of various classes won't exactly map to the same levels. I took the wizard because it's the most generic of the spellcasters, to contrast it to the fighter, which is the most generic of the warriors. They don't have to be exactly as generic as one another to make my point: that being (relatively) generic is no reason why they would have to suck.

The fighter has a very important role in the game. Some people just want to say "I attack", and they need a class too, get over it. DnD Next background/subclass system kind of helps with that. If you just want to say "I attack", be a fighter/soldier/path of the weapon master. If you want anything besides that, the game will probably help you in that regard.

I agree that there needs to be space in the game for people who want such classes. But isn't it strange that there doesn't seem to be anything other than the Fighter for that? What about people who just want to say "I zap it"? Where is their simple wizard who only gets a beefy at-will zapping cantrip and never anything much more complicated than that?

The argument you're making is not a valid reason for either simplistic fighters nor the presence of fighters in general. It is, however, a valid reason to have simplistic versions of every class - including fighters, wizards, paladins, etc.

 

[Bluenose]

The fighter has a very important role in the game. Some people just want to say "I attack", and they need a class too, get over it. DnD Next background/subclass system kind of helps with that. If you just want to say "I attack", be a fighter/soldier/path of the weapon master. If you want anything besides that, the game will probably help you in that regard.

Cheers!

So if I want to defend in the Iron Door stance and then counter into a fleche attack before using a Thunderclap strike to finish my opponents ability to fight back, is the Fighter class suitable for that? If not, which class is?


In my personal opinion, the OP fails at the start when he declares the Fighter can't be too good at combat "for balance reasons". Fine, but then you've got to make sure that no other class is too good at whatever they do, for the same reasons. Good luck with delivering that.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I think the fighter needs to be defined more.

The barbarian has taken the warrior who fights using athelicism and emotion.

The ranger has taken the warrior who fights using techniques and magic to counter their preferred enemy.

The paladin has taken the warrior who fights using divine blessing and power.

The monk has taken the warrior who fights uses inner focus and perfection of self.


What type of warrior is the fighter? Everyone else? The warrior who focuses on general strategies? The warrior who focuses on getting the most out of their weapons and armor?