Conceptual Problem - Fighter vs. Ranger

[paladinm]

I see the fighter as the true "weapons master" of all the classes. A fighter can focus on a weapon (or set of weapons) exclusively, in a way that a ranger, paladin, barbarian, etc. cannot. Paladins are busy with spiritual matters, and rangers with woodland lore. Barbarians aren't disciplined enough. Fighters should have the option to be good with All weapons or to be amazing with one. No other class has (or should have) that capacity. This is why weapon specialization (from 1e UA) and weapon mastery (BECMI) was designed specifically for the "basic" fighter.

 

[pemerton]

This is why weapon specialization (from 1e UA) and weapon mastery (BECMI) was designed specifically for the "basic" fighter.

In UA, rangers as well as fighters had access to weapon specialisation.

Cavliers and paladins also had a fairly strong "weapon of choice" ability.

 

[triqui]

I disagree with the "weapon master" approach. While that *might* be valid for some fighter archetypes, and it's true that D&D pigeonholes fighters into them (because of "weapon specialist" feature), it's not true that they are the only way fighters operate in fluff. Lancelot is a fighter, and he is skilled as a lance-charger as much as a swordman. Achilles could kill equally well with spear, sword, dagger or using a broken stick. Hercules was famous by his bow as much as he was by his club. Beowulf, which was a skilled swordmen, with a pair of magical swords (hrunting and naegling), but he killed Grendel using bare fists, and also uses an axe to fight the dragon.

 

[paladinm]

I stand corrected.. It was the case with BECMI. And honestly it makes sense.. gives a good reason to stay "just a fighter".

 

[pemerton]

True, but I don't feel there's a safe way to rule this in, aside from writing exactly what you just wrote.

<snip>

I really get the feeling though that this seems like less of a rules issue and more of a table issue. I'm not sure I would trust Wizards to word their "suggestions" properly on this subject.

Thanks for the reply (I can't XP you at the moment).

I agree that we're not talking about hard and fast rulings. But I think it's something the game should tackle - talking about how situations can be set up that engage all the PCs, but in ways that make their differences important rather than eliding them, and making it so that it's not just a case of sending the "face" guy, sending the "trap" guy etc. (Just like in combat, where normally we don't just send the weapon guy - all the PCs get involved and each does something a bit different.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

An Archery Fighter doesn't exist in 4E, because a 4E Fighter is a Defender

Actually it does - the Essentials Slayer can be an archery fighter.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

I always used to like the idea of weapon specialisation and mastery for fighters - but it works best in a campaign which is either very magic poor, or very magic rich - because it is a real hindrance if you have become the halberd master and you only ever find magic swords and battleaxes!

Unless it was relatively cheap for fighters to become specialised and masters of weapons, so that they can easily become masters of a range of weapons in a relatively short time.

Another option might be to give fighters a flat damage bonus with any weapon they use (which I guess is essentially the option taken with the slayers, mentioned above)

Cheers

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Unless it was relatively cheap for fighters to become specialised and masters of weapons, so that they can easily become masters of a range of weapons in a relatively short time.

They could also steal the flexible "weapon styles" idea from Mongoose Runequest II (later "Legends") and then give the more martially oriented characters broader styles.

Basically, in MRQ, you can define your weapon styles however you want, within the concept of the character, and a few common sense restrictions. For example, if your barbarians cultural weapons are axe, bow, javelin, dagger, and shield, then you might define a melee style and a ranged style that covers those (with "thrown javelins" tossed into one of them for free). Then you get equally good at axe, dagger, and shield at the same time. Some civilized guy that learned spear, sword, and crossbows in the militia gets a different set. And of course, each group/table can decide to define these as narrow or broad as they want--distinguishing between using sword and board versus sword alone, or not.


It can be rather vague, and does require some explanations to work well. The examples and discussion of the implications are lacking in MRQ II. In D&D terms, you might have three tiers:

• Not much into weapons (e.g. wizard) - styles are one weapon at a time.
• Some weapon use (e.g. rogue, cleric) - styles are relatively tight but flexible by character. A rogue can take one ranged style and one melee style, picking the short list of weapons that fits his concept. A cleric might pick weapons that fit the deity.
• Warriors - styles are broad. Any "true" warrior that learns the battle axe will pick up hand axe and great axe to go with it, or alternately, concentrate on something like great axe and other large weapons. Give fighters more free picks than anyone else.

That way, you don't get into this compromise stuff where, say, the cleric or rogue free weapon proficiency is able to cover a lot of ground, yet manages to be too narrow for some characters and too broad for others. A fighter will naturally gravitate towards being extremely competent with most weapons, but might have a few gaps--gaps unique to that character, not the class.

 

[Sunseeker]

Thanks for the reply (I can't XP you at the moment).

I agree that we're not talking about hard and fast rulings. But I think it's something the game should tackle - talking about how situations can be set up that engage all the PCs, but in ways that make their differences important rather than eliding them, and making it so that it's not just a case of sending the "face" guy, sending the "trap" guy etc. (Just like in combat, where normally we don't just send the weapon guy - all the PCs get involved and each does something a bit different.)

Maybe we need a new take on the DMG, instead of providing rules for encounters, numbers, ect... maybe make it more a philosophical guide to game-building.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe we need a new take on the DMG, instead of providing rules for encounters, numbers, ect... maybe make it more a philosophical guide to game-building.

I'd like to see some of that. The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner would be a good place for WotC to look to get some starting ideas. Also their own Worlds and Monsters 4e pre-release book.

What is different about those books compared to the 4e DMG is that they talk about story elements from the metagame perspective. The 4e DMG talks about the tactical dimension of encounter building from the metagame perspective, but hardly talks about the story element of encoutner building at all. And in the Monster Manual, which has a lot of story elements within it, it's all from the ingame perspective.