Conceptual Problem - Fighter vs. Ranger

[1Mac]

Here's the problem I'm having with the idea of combat classes as fighter archetypes. Let's stick with 3e, where the Fighter basically got all proficiencies and lots of feats. You could of course design all kinds of archetypes with this as your base and still call it a Fighter, but by the time you are through, you are more than halfway to an existing class. Swap out a bunch of feats for rage, DR, and mobility, and you've pretty much got the Barbarian class. Trade feats and proficiencies for skills, survival abilities, and maneuverability, and it looks like the Ranger class. Swap for leadership or challenge abilities and you're halfway to the Marshal or Knight classes.

Contrary to the OP, I don't see the problem with the Fighter coming from some sort of niche-raiding. It's that it's too bland a core to build an interesting archetype on top of without changing the basic mechanics of the class. You could roll the barbarian, knight, monk, marshal, and ranger into one class, but you would have find an interesting enough base mechanic to build the different concepts off of (something with stances, maybe?). Otherwise, by the time you're done with the archetype, you've changed the base class so much that you might as well call it a new class.

 

[Leatherhead]

The Fighter concept is that of a conqueror.

Literally: One who overcomes by force of arms.

The problem is they can't say "conqueror" because everyone thinks of the warlord/general type of conqueror. Personally, I never cared for the warlord/fighter split.

The Ranger concept is that of one who ranges. (duh )

Literally: One who moves over an area so as to explore it.

The problem is that traditionally, rangers have been competent warriors (In some ways, as good as a fighter even). Perhaps due to fiction. Keeping the ranger as good of a warrior as the fighter might be a sacred cow due for the slaughterhouse.

But basically, they focus different pillars.

 

[dkyle]

I think the problem with using all those examples is that they are not PCs in an RPG campaign where they are co-equal protagonists with 4 other people. Many of them are simply too broad, and have little need for relying on anyone else on a regular basis.

How many Wizards in the literature (outside of D&D books) actually cleanly fit into the D&D Wizard?

I think the problem you are having is 4E's assignment of Fighters to the Defender role. But "Defender" is not a traditional literary protagonist. The guys with heavy armor and shields are the supporting characters. But the same is true of magic-users. Spell casters are traditionally aloof allies of the protagonists (Gandalf) or villains (pervasive in Sword and Sorcery). And how many stories are there whose main characters who's primary defining feature is healing and buffing others? Only Strikers come close to directly mapping most literary figures.

But none of that is a problem. Because RPGs are not simulations of novels. That's kind of where they started, but we've been moving away from that for a long time, and for the better. It's like when movie directors figured out that movies could be more than recorded plays. It's a different medium, and different rules apply.

And foremost is that whereas most novels have a single primary protagonist (even if there are many other "main" characters), an RPG group is likely to have 4 or 5, or more, people all playing characters, with equal expectation of being "the protagonist". Which means that the "role" a literary protagonist occupies, really needs to be split up among those players.

When the hero of a book nimbly dodges a blow? That's the Defender taking a hit so the Striker doesn't have to. When the hero lands a well-aimed strike to fell his enemy, that's the Striker landing a critical sneak attack.

So what this ultimately means is that, yes, all those literary characters aren't "D&D Fighters". But they also aren't "D&D Rangers". Or "D&D Rogues". Or "D&D Warlords". They're not "D&D anything" because they simply aren't D&D characters. They exist in a context that is simply, fundamentally, different from RPGs. And I don't think we should be expecting them to "map over".

The 4E Fighter design is a good one. It has it's strong points, and its weak points. The 4E Ranger design is a good one. It has different strong points, and different weak points. An Archery Fighter doesn't exist in 4E, because a 4E Fighter is a Defender, and a Ranged Defender doesn't make much sense. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[hikaizer]

The way I read the 2E rules was that there were 4 classes; Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Thief. Then there were the kits for each, Paladin and Ranger for Fighter, Specialty Mage for Wizard, Druid for Cleric and Bard for Thief. Honestly my personal view on the matter of Fighters and Rangers being so similar without including Ranger's magic is to simply make the Ranger a kit for the Fighter again. That's the paradigm they appear to be pursuing anyway.

 

[El Mahdi]

Please note: this is kind of a thematic answer to a mechanical question and I apologize for that in advance but here we go...

A fighter is a guy who...look, you might hate level titles but look at the 1st level fighter title in AD&D: veteran. Here's a cat who fought his way for season after season in the peasant levies, seeing his buddies get mowed down like wheat, trampled into red mush under the hooves of the high-and-mighty on their pretty war-horses and plate mail, maybe making it to sundown and finding a barber who'd sew his ear back on or wrap a couple of thin boards and string around the mess of cracked twigs that were his left hand until an orc's hobnail boot ground into it on the battlefield and at the end of it all came out alive. Not just alive but unlike the other cloth-eared coconut-heads who're going to find themselves cold clay in a season or three, he's able to apply what he knows and get better at it.

He's a badass by dint of wanting to be. He's not some screaming madman who fights like a aurumvorax because he grew up on a glacier and was savagely beaten awake every morning and had to gouge out his brothers eyes if he wanted to eat a strip of raw meat before he slept on a cold rock for three hours that night. He's not some prissy mirror-shined plate-mail wearing fop who spent his formative years putting perfume in his saddle and learning the harpsichord along with heavy lance. He's not some addlepated zealot who hears "the voice of God" telling him to order some dirt-poor villagers to cough up ten of the gold pieces they don't have to "the glory of Hieroneus" or whoever. He's not some half-thief survivalist nut who talks in circles but can't be bothered to warn anyone about an ambush or poison plant until it's almost too late, or tell anyone just how to stab a giant to hurt it worse...

No.

He is a fighter. And by all that's holy, he'll win the day because he wants to.

This was frackin' beautiful Man. Unfortunately I need to spread some more XP around. But Hell Yeah, that's the heart of the Fighter!

 

[Aramax]

I personally hate this "give rangers two weapon fighting and archery just because" thing that D&D has going.

I prefer ranger by made in nature attuned warriors.

They are good at archery because nature produces animals and monsters that the ranger doesn't want to fight in melee due to their size, poison, disease, horns, etc.

They use two weapons and light armor because two handed weapons and shields are too heavy and chunky to travel in the woods, sands, or snow.

They know healing and poison removal because they travel far way from civilization and do not have easy access to a town healer or cleric to cure wounds and remove toxins.

They are good at stealth, detection, and wilderness survival because they often don't have back up when dealing with the mighty creatures of the wilderness and cannot afford to enter unnecessary deadly conflicts.

The fighter doesn't have those problems. They fight on clear battlefields free of roaming beasts, poisonous plants, constant exposure to the elements, and natural disasters. So they have a reason to train in all weapons, heavy armors,and multiple fighting styles.

Rangers used 2 handed weopons for years before a dark elf ruined it for everyone............

 

[ExploderWizard]

The Fighting Man

Role: Combat


The End

It really is that simple. With the design of the game aimed at gameplay in all 3 pillars, the fighter has his niche-hitting things.

Barbarians, paladins, rangers, knights, etc. there are all just fighters with a certain theme.

 

[Sunseeker]

The Fighting Man

Role: Combat


The End

It really is that simple. With the design of the game aimed at gameplay in all 3 pillars, the fighter has his niche-hitting things.

Barbarians, paladins, rangers, knights, etc. there are all just fighters with a certain theme.

And it would be just as boring now as it was then.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And it would be just as boring now as it was then.

Without even seeing all the cool stuff that themes can add!!

Why does packaging things as a class = interesting but including specialties, or themes is boring?

 

[Sunseeker]

Without even seeing all the cool stuff that themes can add!!

Why does packaging things as a class = interesting but including specialties, or themes is boring?

I was referring to a class whose only purpose was combat, that's boring. When I can get up from the table and go make myself some food while the Bard chats with the DM for half an hour, I'm going to be really disinterested.

Playing a character who focuses on combat can be fun. Playing a character who is limited to ONLY combat isn't.

The multiple pillars of the game are designed to be enjoyed by all players, perhaps not to the same degree, but certainly they should be able to participate.

Exploring? Fighters are great for exploring, especially considering that dungeoneering has been one of their primary skills for multiple editions.

Social aspects? Fighters may not be the most skilled talkers, but few people are going to keep their lips shut when the 6'5", 350lb warrior in another 200lbs of plate wielding a mace that would dwarf a dwarf leans in real close and asks you a question. They might also be the best choice when talking to military types, thugs, and others who might be more swayed by the size of your mace than the skill of your tongue.

While each class may enjoy larger roles in specific pillars, at no point should any class, and therefore their player, be unable to participate.

I honestly have fairly low expectations for "themes", I expect them to be little more than fluff.