Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog - The Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5815391" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>I was delighted with the 3.0 fighter, myself. I played one for the full run of the game, in a campaign with (at times) two other fighters. One quickly MCd to Cleric, and one came into the campaign in 3.5 (a dedicated archer). My fighter was a mixed 'tactical reach' build using a pole-arm, combat reflexes, spring attack, expertise, power attack, quickdraw and a range of weapons to maximize his flexibility. He was the party's 'battle leader,' and tried very hard to manuever to limit enemy options, protect his buddies and give them bonuses. He could just barely do those things, in maybe one fight out of three, because the rest of the time the sorcerer or full-caster cleric would just end the battle early with an SoD.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The fighter is more focused in 4e, it's also a lot more effective at what it does. No 3.x fighter could begin to compare to it for round-to-round versatility or peak power (where fighters had always lagged casters by such vast degrees that was like they weren't even playing the same game), nor for effectiveness in the fighter's iconic role (protecting the other members of his party as a front-liner). The fighter couldn't be an archer, and was limitted (heavy thrown weapons, few or no powers) in ranged combat, but as the classic 'tank' the class had been since 0D&D, it did everything it needed to (and couldn't before), and more. OTOH, the fighter didn't need to be a great archer, because the ranger was now a 100% martial class capable of being a great archer and skirmisher. The fighter didn't need to be a full-bab 'duelist' style light-armor 'fast' fighter, because the Rogue was now up to modeling that sort of purely-martial character. The fighter didn't need to grope and stretch at it's traditional, never-supported, 'leader' role, because the martial source now had the Warlord.</p><p></p><p>4e was like a renaisance for the martial source. Where, before, the fighter stood virtualy alone in modeling martial archetypes, it finally had help, and could specialize on it's *ahem* 'core competencies.' Where before casters dominated, martial characters were now broadly competative (though casters still had much greater breadth and variety in their abilities, at least in general power and resources there was finaly a rough parity).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5815391, member: 996"] I was delighted with the 3.0 fighter, myself. I played one for the full run of the game, in a campaign with (at times) two other fighters. One quickly MCd to Cleric, and one came into the campaign in 3.5 (a dedicated archer). My fighter was a mixed 'tactical reach' build using a pole-arm, combat reflexes, spring attack, expertise, power attack, quickdraw and a range of weapons to maximize his flexibility. He was the party's 'battle leader,' and tried very hard to manuever to limit enemy options, protect his buddies and give them bonuses. He could just barely do those things, in maybe one fight out of three, because the rest of the time the sorcerer or full-caster cleric would just end the battle early with an SoD. The fighter is more focused in 4e, it's also a lot more effective at what it does. No 3.x fighter could begin to compare to it for round-to-round versatility or peak power (where fighters had always lagged casters by such vast degrees that was like they weren't even playing the same game), nor for effectiveness in the fighter's iconic role (protecting the other members of his party as a front-liner). The fighter couldn't be an archer, and was limitted (heavy thrown weapons, few or no powers) in ranged combat, but as the classic 'tank' the class had been since 0D&D, it did everything it needed to (and couldn't before), and more. OTOH, the fighter didn't need to be a great archer, because the ranger was now a 100% martial class capable of being a great archer and skirmisher. The fighter didn't need to be a full-bab 'duelist' style light-armor 'fast' fighter, because the Rogue was now up to modeling that sort of purely-martial character. The fighter didn't need to grope and stretch at it's traditional, never-supported, 'leader' role, because the martial source now had the Warlord. 4e was like a renaisance for the martial source. Where, before, the fighter stood virtualy alone in modeling martial archetypes, it finally had help, and could specialize on it's *ahem* 'core competencies.' Where before casters dominated, martial characters were now broadly competative (though casters still had much greater breadth and variety in their abilities, at least in general power and resources there was finaly a rough parity). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog - The Fighter
Top