Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6285913" data-attributes="member: 17106">Exactly. It doesn't limit you to one type of flavor or "hook" you into one mechanical subsystem (like, say, some specialized maneuvers). It just gives you more of some stuff (the stuff that's relevant to melee combat) than it does of some other stuff.I don't recall any of our 2e fighters ever having followers or going to any other classes. It was all about those extra half attacks on the way to grandmastery and rolling high on your extreme strength to start. I don't think any of those other bits were really central to the class.Fighter was also, to be fair, the most commonly available multiclass for the various demihumans, and the fighter/thieves and fighter/mages were quite common in those days (a dynamic that 3e lost, to some extent). But a straight up fighter was about as monolithic of an "I attack" machine as you could get. And without feats or skills, they didn't even have any advantages in the NWP arena IIRC.Well, we're pretty sure it works now.I get old school. People who don't want to change anything because they like the D&D game they grew up with. It's not me, but it makes sense.What I don't get is how people can somehow reconcile adding in elements that are completely antithetical to old school D&D (including class-specific maneuvers/powers/etc. for the fighter, resource limitations on the same, martial healing, martial mind control), but when faced with the possibility of other less radical and more parsimonious changes, cry out that D&D is a special snowflake, not a general fantasy rpg, and it can't ever change. The amount of cognitive dissonance inherent in that perspective is mind-boggling to me.Indeed. And that's what I'm saying. Each mechanical system (skills, the combat rules, health and healing, magic, etc.) should be built in its entirely, be thoroughly tested and be functional across a broad range of applications, completely independent of any particular class. Specific character building rules like classes are simply not inherent to d20 or D&D at large.To the extent that the fighter in its various incarnations has problems, it is simply symptomatic of bigger system issues. The lack of active defense, the limitations of an outmoded health system, the lack of granularity and the linear advancement. Those things are there for all the classes (in all the editions), but they look worse in fighters because there are no separate exception-based mechanics (like spells or powers) being employed to paper over those deficiencies. I'm far more interested in improving the system than I am in covering my ears and pretending like everything's fine.All that being said, if I were playing a new 3e game today (or 2e or earlier game), I'd take a fighter any day. It may show D&D's warts, but if I'm playing D&D, I might as well accept them. And it's a better class than most.</blockquote>

Verification