D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Because of the basic concept.

That's it.

Just like people want a magical warrior type, but don't have it, a lot of other people want a character whose primary deal is that they're a skilled warrior, in armour, probably with a sword of some kind. I will say it seems to rather less popular with younger players than older, in my experience anyway. Whereas say, Rogue is as popular as it ever was.
We get a lot of generic fighters (the chassis) in our games.

I feel they are still as popular, and find their "generic" nature helps build a wide spectrum of archetypes.

Anecdotally of course...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Yeah I feel like older Millennials and maybe a little younger were so exposed to images of/writing about cool fantasy warriors (who typically have magical powers, nor were outright berserkers) that this sort of overcame the "sounds dull" factor. But people much younger than say 35 likely grew up playing videogames and watching TV where warriors tended to have at least flashy martial-arts-style powers, which, to be fair, in 4E, Fighters did have, but 5E's whole unacknowledged "apology edition" deal meant they took that and anything much like that away.

And what's particularly damning is fantasy warriors today who aren't flashy martial arts types or using actual magic as well, tend to be very skilled individuals, very knowledgeable/talented. But D&D Fighters aren't even that. They're arguably the very worst, least-skilled class out of combat, which doesn't fit at all.
I like the main gist of your idea....but it bothers me how often you bring out "apology edition"

But I respect your thoughts.
 









Remove ads

Top