D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Micah Sweet]

No, mutliclassing as we know it didn't even exist for humans until 3rd edition.

My 2e PHB straight up just says that Hercules, Beowulf, Sinbad, Charlemagne, Spartacus and Richard the Lionheart (among others) are basic fighters.



Isn't 'replicating fictional figures in a game statblock' the very definition of what RPGs try to do?

Doing that is literally my favorite hobby.

 

[Scribe]

Yup. I maintain that Level Up is better than either, and I'd guess @Scribe feels Shadowdark is better than either too.

I mean Shadowdark solves all of this neatly and simply, how can it NOT be the objectively better way?

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, mutliclassing as we know it didn't even exist for humans until 3rd edition.

Multi-classing, dual classing, same basic thing when you're talking about trying to replicate a fictional character. that's been there from the beginning. For example, King Arthur is a human, and yet....

My 2e PHB straight up just says that Hercules, Beowulf, Sinbad, Charlemagne, Spartacus and Richard the Lionheart (among others) are basic fighters.

And they can be. What specifically did Spartacus or Sinbad or the other do that a fighter could not do?

Isn't 'replicating fictional figures in a game statblock' the very definition of what RPGs try to do?

No. Those are for inspiration, not to replicate as a statblock. RPGs are role-playing games. It's in the name. I haven't seen a single RPG where the very definition was to replicate fictional characters into a statblock. After all, how could you, mechanically? How could you have a game that perfectly replicated the abilities of Gandalf, Merlin, Kvothe, Kelsier, Aslan, Allanon, etc.? Each story and fictional account is so different that you couldn't. Each RPG picks a few of the most common tropes and tries to manage that. Nothing will ever be a perfect replication.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean Shadowdark solves all of this neatly and simply, how can it NOT be the objectively better way?

It certainly does, and I've played and enjoyed Sh

Multi-classing, dual classing, same basic thing when you're talking about trying to replicate a fictional character. that's been there from the beginning. For example, King Arthur is a human, and yet....
View attachment 429070


And they can be. What specifically did Spartacus or Sinbad or the other do that a fighter could not do?

No. Those are for inspiration, not to replicate as a statblock. RPGs are role-playing games. It's in the name. I haven't seen a single RPG where the very definition was to replicate fictional characters into a statblock. After all, how could you, mechanically? How could you have a game that perfectly replicated the abilities of Gandalf, Merlin, Kvothe, Kelsier, Aslan, Allanon, etc.? Each story and fictional account is so different that you couldn't. Each RPG picks a few of the most common tropes and tries to manage that. Nothing will ever be a perfect replication.

RPGs are, however, a wonderful tool for mechanically representing fiction, are for me at least an amazingly fun activity, at least as fun as game night for me.

 

[soviet]

No. Those are for inspiration, not to replicate as a statblock. RPGs are role-playing games. It's in the name. I haven't seen a single RPG where the very definition was to replicate fictional characters into a statblock.

Please name an RPG that does not replicate fictional characters into a statblock.

After all, how could you, mechanically? How could you have a game that perfectly replicated the abilities of Gandalf, Merlin, Kvothe, Kelsier, Aslan, Allanon, etc.? Each story and fictional account is so different that you couldn't. Each RPG picks a few of the most common tropes and tries to manage that. Nothing will ever be a perfect replication.

You introduced the notion that the replication would be perfect in this post. It was not part of the discussion before.

 

[Lanefan]

That's similar to the sort of thing that led to my thinking. There are a ton of (non-spellcasting) fighter heroes in fiction that clearly don't fit into the "Thief/Rogue" archetype. But they are still good at things like sneaking, scouting, and the like. If the Ranger has to be a spellcaster, then the fighter has to be expanded enough to cover the skirmisher character as well as the frontline combatant. If the Barbarian is built around Rage, then Fighter has to cover characters like Conan and Fafhrd, although one could work in a little Rogue/Thief as well.

Similarly, "Swashbuckler" is as much a Fighter-archetype as it is a Rogue one. Madmartigan? He, too, may be multi-classed, but the "greatest swordsman who ever lived" had better be primarily a fighter, or the class is silly.

Even Aragorn is primarily not a spellcaster, doesn't wear armor except for battles, and mostly (exclusively in the books) fights with a sword, not a bow. In the movies, he has a short hunting bow that he can (and does) use in battles, but it's a secondary weapon for him. But yeah, he's skilled in wilderness lore, can move stealthily, and is a learned figure, but why does any of that make him "not a fighter?"

Aragorn - fighter with extras.
Any swashbuckler - fighter with extras.
Lancelot - pure fighter.

You've got lost in the weeds, I think, in thinking fighter-with-extras classes are comparable to straight-up fighters. They're not, and the game has to realize this (and has, to a point, now and then in the past, by giving straight-up Fighters some benefits other Fighter-adjacent classes didn't get).

I think D&D lost its way in the start by asserting that STR is the basis for melee combat. While arguments can be made for bludgeons, axes, polearms and the like being STR-based, the ability to use swords and spears effectively is primarily not based on strength, but rather on agility (DEX in D&D terms). Because D&D lumps armor and defense into one category, an argument can be made for that (a heavy enough blow can pierce armor), but that really isn't how swords work. Swinging harder not only doesn't help with accuracy, it actively hurts.

Completely disagree on this from a more gamist perspective. Dexterity as a stat has always been too powerful, giving it yet more power is bad design. Yes, this means weapon finesse is a bad design idea.

Far more balanced to just say Strength = offense and Dexterity = defense, and have done with it.

Short version: 5e has made progress by putting all the classes on a more even keel as regards proficiencies, but I wonder if some of the reasons they've had trouble making the Ranger class compelling (can't have the Ranger tread on the fighter's toes) is that a lot of the canonical characters we think of as "Rangers," like Lan, Robin Hood, Legolas, or Aragorn(*) should just be fighters. There's nothing like D&D spellcasting in their worlds, so the D&D "Ranger" doesn't fit.

Rangers as a class shouldn't be spellcasters right from the start; in 1e they got spells in a minor way starting at 8th level, which is fine for a game intended to peter out around 10th.

Rangers should in fact just be Fighters-with-extras; those extras being woodscraft, tracking, survival, herbalism*, and hunting. (and let's lose the animal companions, shall we; none of those examples runs around with a pet bear or panther trailing at his heels)

* - there is a huge amount of unused design space around magical herbs and plants, which would logically be the Rangers' forte if ever introduced.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes.
And its because they made the Rogue/Thief a separate class in the first place.

In early days when the Thief wasn't very good at combat they didn't really tread on the Fighters' toes at all. Sure a Thief might get an occasional spectacular backstrike, but most of the time the fighting was left to the front-liners when-where possible.

When 3e turned Rogues into the party's primary damage dealer (by making sneak attack so easy that it might as well be always-on), however, Fighters got the shaft.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Please name an RPG that does not replicate fictional characters into a statblock.

Almost all of them outside of D&D. We're talking about existing characters out of fictional history. D&D (I'm sure there might be a couple others) is one of the only ones that actually has tried to turn a fictional character from other media into a D&D statblock, and that's mostly from the fans.

You introduced the notion that the replication would be perfect in this post. It was not part of the discussion before.

Ok, near-perfect. Almost perfect. Really super close. I mean, that's the whole thing you've been arguing for, right? to be able to replicate a fictional person into a statblock without multi-classing? At least that's what it has seemed like to me reading your posts. So my comment still stands. How do you replicate all of those characters into a statblock using any single RPG that captures everything they could do in their respective stories, perfect or not? I'll wait.

 

[soviet]

Almost all of them outside of D&D. We're talking about existing characters out of fictional history.

You might be. I am not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You're not? I would certainly like clarification if we're not talking about fictional characters out of history and fantasy literature, but I hope you can see where I would get that impression.

You mean like Ned or Robb Stark, or John Snow; all of whom have multiple skills, are well-learned, persuasive, and can survive in the wilderness, track, sneak, ride, and are reasonably athletic?

Or the many knights of Arthurian and other Chivalric romance who are almost always skilled woodsmen AND accomplished courtiers in addition to being skilled combatants and accomplished riders?

Or the Samurai of Japanese legend (and reality) who were expected to cultivate artistic pursuits in addition to being able to use weapons well, both on horseback and not?

Or the various characters in "The Thirteenth Warrior," say? Many of whom were skilled in things other than just fighting. ALL of them were reasonably stealthy, perceptive, trained sailors, and soldiers who could ride horses and build siege defenses. Yes, they all had specialties, but like Roman Legionaires, they're definitely more than just combatants.

And then there's all the heroes of Greek myth and legend, most of whom are basically just fighters (albeit also often demigods), including Achilles, Odysseus, Hercules, Perseus, Theseus, Jason, and the rest of the crew of the Argo.

And I think that case can be made for just about ALL of the "Fighter types" in legends and fiction. Yes, they are skilled combatants, but that alone doesn't define them.