JohnSnow
Hero
So, there was an article on the WotC site a couple weeks ago that they didn't know what to do with the fighter class because it was "insufficiently well-defined" or some such. I think the problem may be that, as they've tried to define the niche of other classes, WotC has largely defined the fighter class by what it is not, as opposed to what it is.
The fighter can't have magic, since that's the domain of the wizard. He can't have rage, since that's the barbarian's schtick. He can't be an unarmed combatant, because then he's treading on the monk's turf. Since the rogue is "the skill-user," the fighter can't have too many skills. With 4e, he could no longer be an archer, because that would be treading on the ranger's turf. By creating the Warlord class, they also carved out any character that ever commanded troops. You want Alexander the Great? Sorry, he's not a fighter, he's a Warlord. And on, and on.
All that niche-carving meant narrowing down the fighter class until it was defined basically as follows:
Fighters exist to soak up damage. They wear heavy armor and wield either a two-handed weapon or a weapon and shield. Sometimes, they throw axes, hammers, or javelins. Their damage output is...okay.
I grant that's a niche, but it's a boring as hell niche. And it means that every hero in fantasy fiction who doesn't follow that niche isn't a fighter. Cu Chulainn isn't a fighter, he's a barbarian (rage). Neither is Conan - who's not a barbarian either, so he must be - what, a ranger? Hercules, Beowulf, Charlemagne, Alexander, Caesar, Spartacus, Brian Boru, Theseus, Perseus, Jason, Odysseus, Achilles, El Cid, Arthur, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Athos, Porthos, Aramis, D'Artagnan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Bard, Aragorn, Legolas, Faramir, Lan (from The Wheel of Time), The Seven Samurai, and the various vikings in The Thirteenth Warrior - none of these characters are fighters. In all cases, they're too capable or multi-talented, or they don't adhere to the weapon and armor restrictions proscribed by the niche.
Who is? Boromir (although a good argument could be made for Boromir as Warlord). Gimli the dwarf and his kinsmen from The Hobbit. Maybe. Sturm (from Dragonlance), perhaps.
"Fighter" as archetype roughly translates to "Heroic Warrior." All of the above should probably be fighters (a couple might be rogues). So the first thing we should do is accept that fighters don't just wear heavy armor, they wear light armor (or none) as well. They also don't just use melee weapons, but bows as well. A fighter might have a gift for tactics (many do - think Maximus in Gladiator, or even Captain America), but that doesn't suddenly make him a different class.
The problem if you admit this is that the ranger and the warlord start to look pretty difficult to define. They're stomping all over the fighter's turf, without enough to define them as classes that don't take things away from the fighter.
In Middle Earth, "Ranger" was a role - a job. Similarly, in the real world, rangers are people trained in survival and wilderness combat. But what sets a ranger apart froma fighter with wilderness skills? Going back to AD&D, rangers made sense - they were an elite fighter for the forces of good - a better fighter than the fighter. And I understand the theory behind the warlord (don't get me wrong, I love having a non-magical healer class), but to me the warlord's existence just pigeonholes the fighter even more into being just the "damage sponge." And that's a poor fate for the class that originally represented almost every hero from history, myth and fiction.
What would I do? Define the ranger by supernatural abilities and lore access that make it unique. Use Aragorn as the model and have the ranger "kill the warlord and take his stuff." Now we have a single class that's not as specialized a fighter, but has more access to magic and tactical/leadership/healing abilities. That's an archetype worth having in the game. It means Aragorn is a ranger, but Legolas isn't. It means that Robin Hood is probably a ranger, but Little John isn't. Maybe Odysseus and Jason are rangers, but Achilles and Perseus aren't.
My two cents. Your thoughts?
The fighter can't have magic, since that's the domain of the wizard. He can't have rage, since that's the barbarian's schtick. He can't be an unarmed combatant, because then he's treading on the monk's turf. Since the rogue is "the skill-user," the fighter can't have too many skills. With 4e, he could no longer be an archer, because that would be treading on the ranger's turf. By creating the Warlord class, they also carved out any character that ever commanded troops. You want Alexander the Great? Sorry, he's not a fighter, he's a Warlord. And on, and on.
All that niche-carving meant narrowing down the fighter class until it was defined basically as follows:
Fighters exist to soak up damage. They wear heavy armor and wield either a two-handed weapon or a weapon and shield. Sometimes, they throw axes, hammers, or javelins. Their damage output is...okay.
I grant that's a niche, but it's a boring as hell niche. And it means that every hero in fantasy fiction who doesn't follow that niche isn't a fighter. Cu Chulainn isn't a fighter, he's a barbarian (rage). Neither is Conan - who's not a barbarian either, so he must be - what, a ranger? Hercules, Beowulf, Charlemagne, Alexander, Caesar, Spartacus, Brian Boru, Theseus, Perseus, Jason, Odysseus, Achilles, El Cid, Arthur, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Athos, Porthos, Aramis, D'Artagnan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Bard, Aragorn, Legolas, Faramir, Lan (from The Wheel of Time), The Seven Samurai, and the various vikings in The Thirteenth Warrior - none of these characters are fighters. In all cases, they're too capable or multi-talented, or they don't adhere to the weapon and armor restrictions proscribed by the niche.
Who is? Boromir (although a good argument could be made for Boromir as Warlord). Gimli the dwarf and his kinsmen from The Hobbit. Maybe. Sturm (from Dragonlance), perhaps.
"Fighter" as archetype roughly translates to "Heroic Warrior." All of the above should probably be fighters (a couple might be rogues). So the first thing we should do is accept that fighters don't just wear heavy armor, they wear light armor (or none) as well. They also don't just use melee weapons, but bows as well. A fighter might have a gift for tactics (many do - think Maximus in Gladiator, or even Captain America), but that doesn't suddenly make him a different class.
The problem if you admit this is that the ranger and the warlord start to look pretty difficult to define. They're stomping all over the fighter's turf, without enough to define them as classes that don't take things away from the fighter.
In Middle Earth, "Ranger" was a role - a job. Similarly, in the real world, rangers are people trained in survival and wilderness combat. But what sets a ranger apart froma fighter with wilderness skills? Going back to AD&D, rangers made sense - they were an elite fighter for the forces of good - a better fighter than the fighter. And I understand the theory behind the warlord (don't get me wrong, I love having a non-magical healer class), but to me the warlord's existence just pigeonholes the fighter even more into being just the "damage sponge." And that's a poor fate for the class that originally represented almost every hero from history, myth and fiction.
What would I do? Define the ranger by supernatural abilities and lore access that make it unique. Use Aragorn as the model and have the ranger "kill the warlord and take his stuff." Now we have a single class that's not as specialized a fighter, but has more access to magic and tactical/leadership/healing abilities. That's an archetype worth having in the game. It means Aragorn is a ranger, but Legolas isn't. It means that Robin Hood is probably a ranger, but Little John isn't. Maybe Odysseus and Jason are rangers, but Achilles and Perseus aren't.
My two cents. Your thoughts?
Last edited:
