Complex fighter pitfalls

[Neonchameleon]

Why do you say this? I'm curious because all of my examples were from literature... not games.

Genre types then. Unless one was explicitely a sidekick you wouldn't have the two fighters mixing in a story.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Excuse me, if it was said already:

In 3.5, the maneuver system was not bad at all. You can do anything you like, with quite bad chances, as the enemy may make an opportunity attack against you.

I don't think that was said already - because it isn't true.

"You can do anything you like, with quite bad chances" is about equivalent to saying "You can bounce round the dungeon on a pogo stick - you just won't do very well". So too with a grapple or disarm. An AoO is a fairly huge penalty in 3.X.

Not every maneuver should work against any enemy like in 4e. The problem in 4e is the limited maneuver AEDU structure.

It doesn't. 4e monsters have immunities. Just not many of them. And whoever thought zombies should be immune to having their heads knocked off needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the problem is that there really are two distinct, but broad, fighter archetypes and they maybe need to be seperated.

There's what I'll call the mythic fighter archetype which I guess would encompass characters like Beowulf, Hercules, Achilles and Sunjata. The second archetype is what I'll refer to as the Sword and Sorcery arechetype and includes such characters as Fafhrd, Moonglum, Conan, Gray Mouser and Imaro. I definitely see a sharp divide in the abilities and more importantly the tone and feel that these different takes on the fighter archetype provide. I guess the question is whether D&D is a game about the "mythic" fighter, the "sword and sorcery" fighter, or both... and if both how can D&D have these two distinctly different but broadly related archetypes under a single class or better yet should they even try.

I'd buy this argument a bit more if so many people didn't seem bound and determined to build a fighter class that can't even do what Fafhrd, Conan, etc. actually do in those stories. Among other things, those kinds of characters are invariably highly skilled--almost roguish in D&D terms. Not infrequently, their skills is as much a part of their combat tricks as their direct combat prowess.

 

[Imaro]

Genre types then. Unless one was explicitely a sidekick you wouldn't have the two fighters mixing in a story.

Well there was that one story where Elric, Jimi Hendrix and a stoner kid teamed up to fight evil sorcerers... and since, IMO, it is definitely arguable that Jimi Hendrix was a mythic bard (okay so not a mythic fighter, but close)... So maybe it could happen...

 

[Imaro]

I'd buy this argument a bit more if so many people didn't seem bound and determined to build a fighter class that can't even do what Fafhrd, Conan, etc. actually do in those stories. Among other things, those kinds of characters are invariably highly skilled--almost roguish in D&D terms. Not infrequently, their skills is as much a part of their combat tricks as their direct combat prowess.

From what I remember, and it has been awhile, I never thought Fafhrd was all that "skilled" of a character... now Mouser was a different story but I'd clasify him as a rogue/fighter (maybe even just a rogue) not a straight fighter. Conan is part fighter, part ranger (or rogue depending on D&D edition) and (possibly)part barbarian... Or he could just be an exceptionally strong and hardy ranger or even a strong and hardy rogue who became proficient in a wide variety of weapons.

Addressing your bigger point though... I believe...

1.) it's a seperate issue from the combat capability of the fighter class

2.)has more to do with the limitations and niche protection of a class based system when trying to perfectly replicate characters not created using it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The twain are roughly equally skilled, though it is true that the Gray Mouser's skill are more inline with a rogue (and even wizard) multiclass in D&D terms. Just going off of rough memory, Fafhrd is highly skilled at climbing, skiing, and riding horses. So far, all rather athletic pursuits, true. But he is also highly skilled in all aspects of sailing, including the individual tasks as well as leading a crew, navigation, ship repair, etc. That brings up leadership, where he also shows significant abilities (greater even than the Mouser, who is no slouch). Finally, Fafhrd on more than one occasions show considerable insight into the workings of magic and creatures, albeit more intuitive than academic. He almost perfectly fits the definition of having a good "insight" score in recent D&D terms--and not because of some high Wisdom score, either.

The very first Conan scene shows him handling the paperwork of a kingdom--grudgingly, but handling it!

Whether this leads to a way to solve the issue in this topic, I don't know. I'm merely addressing the contention that "D&D is Sword and Sorcery, not Mythic," doesn't really provide a way out, either.

 

[Campbell]

Hmm, I'm not so sure about this...I think D&D does a pretty good job of approximating a different type of sword and sorcery (if that's what you want to play as opposed to mythic or high fantasy with it) at high levels. At higher levels you're no longer Conan, Moonglum and Fafhrd but instead your heroes are in the vein of later sword and sorcery heroes like Elric, Kane, Corum and Hawkmoon.

EDIT: Though I would note that even these warriors use magic (whether in the form of rituals, curses, items, etc.) to enhance themselves to the point that they rival mythic heroes... which is strikingly similar to D&D... IMO.

Elric was a deliberate but loving deconstruction of Swords and Sorcery as it stood. He's the anti-Conan : sickly, civilized, a schemer, a sorcerer. Conan deals with the supernatural. Elric makes deals with the supernatural. The two types of swords and sorcery are as different as night and day.

 

[Imaro]

The twain are roughly equally skilled, though it is true that the Gray Mouser's skill are more inline with a rogue (and even wizard) multiclass in D&D terms. Just going off of rough memory, Fafhrd is highly skilled at climbing, skiing, and riding horses. So far, all rather athletic pursuits, true. But he is also highly skilled in all aspects of sailing, including the individual tasks as well as leading a crew, navigation, ship repair, etc. That brings up leadership, where he also shows significant abilities (greater even than the Mouser, who is no slouch). Finally, Fafhrd on more than one occasions show considerable insight into the workings of magic and creatures, albeit more intuitive than academic. He almost perfectly fits the definition of having a good "insight" score in recent D&D terms--and not because of some high Wisdom score, either.

So Fafhrd is trained in Climbing, Profession (sailor), and ride... seems doable as a fighter in most editions... with a feat spent to become "insightful" in some way.

The very first Conan scene shows him handling the paperwork of a kingdom--grudgingly, but handling it!

Profession (ruler)?? I mean this could just be an above average intelligence score as well though. Especially if he's not shown to be particualrly adept or exceptional at it.

Whether this leads to a way to solve the issue in this topic, I don't know. I'm merely addressing the contention that "D&D is Sword and Sorcery, not Mythic," doesn't really provide a way out, either.

Uhm... who stated this contention? I brought up my thoughts that combat wise there were two broad fighter archetypes (or genre types as neonchameleon prefers) that are different enough that they can cause a divide in how the fighter's combat power level is viewed between deifferent players of D&D. I haven't stated that one is D&D and one isn't just that they are different enough that putting them under the same class is probably problemtaic.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Uhm... who stated this contention? I brought up my thoughts that combat wise there were two broad fighter archetypes (or genre types as neonchameleon prefers) that are different enough that they can cause a divide in how the fighter's combat power level is viewed between deifferent players of D&D. I haven't stated that one is D&D and one isn't just that they are different enough that putting them under the same class is probably problemtaic.

I don't think you can turn to Sword and Sorcery literature for an answer to combat styles in isolation--and then ignore the differences in skills in the characters. Anymore than you can turn to Sword and Sorcery for an implied "magic is ultra powerful stuff that can wreck a warrior's day" while ignoring that S&S wizards are often antagonists, using quite unheroic or even evil means to gain their power ... and get skewered rather rapidly as soon as they warrior gets a clear shot.

Plus, I don't think there are two broad fighter archetypes in literature, but a continuum. It's true that what we generally call S&S is more towards the naturalistic side of that continuum than the mythic, compared to other stories, but if you compared S&S to some of the more gritty, truly naturalistic tales, the shoe would be on the other foot.

Historical Gunslingler is to Maverick/Rooster Cogburn is to Pecos Bill ... as ... Historical Warrior is to Fafhrd is to Hercules.

The spot on the continuum dictates the style of the story, not only for the warrior but for the rest of the characters as well. That's why people have been saying that mundane fighter with mythic wizard doesn't really work.

 

[Alarian]

And the reason they were "same-y" was simply because those players suddenly no longer had the most powerful character at the table. That makes them the antithesis of what D&D wants as players because D&D wants groups. Evryone being balanced leads to a wider audience so long as they actually reach that audience.

Actually the reason they were "same-y" is because basically everyone has the same abilities with just different names and flavor text. Everyone can heal, everyone can do about the same damage with each attack. Everyone can push their opponent, etc. 4th in an attempt to perfectly balance each class made them all too similar.

Yes of course they are not all identical, but most classes have basically the same abilities with a an emphasis in a certain direction in order to make them at least a little different. I.e. Controller, Leader, etc.

TO ME, 4th removed the cool factor of what made each class unique and homogenized them all into a bland oneness.