Does D&D need a fighter class?

[Derren]

Coming from the What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like? I starting to doubt that D&D really needs a fighter class because it is pretty much redundant.

In D&D, especially in later editions 3E and upward, everyone can fight anyway. A fighter class, at least the way it is used now, is thus not really needed. It can't be so much better in combat than everyone else because of balance reasons and it is very hard to find a non combat niche for a class which is so centered around combat than the fighter.

I think it would be best if the fighter class would be rolled into the existing classes, Ranger for skirmisher and archer, Paladin for knights and Barbarian for the front line fighter. Because of the tighter focus of those classes it is imo more easy to find non combat activities for them, too.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If D&D wants to continue being D&D then yes, it needs a fighter class. One may add whatever classes are desired to the mix but fighter, cleric, and magic user are core to the game.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I have to agree with EW here. There's no reason that a generic "fighting man" class shouldn't be in the game. Paladins, barbarians, rangers and the like are all niches of the standard.

What needs to change, IMO, is the idea that a fighter only fights. I mean, so many archetypes of fighters - knights, samurai, gladiator, centurion etc - do so much more than just fight stuff. There's no particular reason why "I can fight really well" means, "When I'm not fighting, I am pretty much just riding the pines".

If you are going to have a fighter that is the best at beating stuff with a lumpy metal thing, then the backgrounds system can probably be used to round things out much better. Stop stripping out of combat options from fighter classes as a means of balance. It doesn't work. Balance like with like. Fighters should be the best at dealing damage to single targets, while probably not being as effective against large numbers. But, I don't like the idea that you use one pillar to balance the others.

 

[Derren]

If D&D wants to continue being D&D then yes, it needs a fighter class. One may add whatever classes are desired to the mix but fighter, cleric, and magic user are core to the game.

And yet Magic User has already been split up into Cleric and Wizard.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And yet Magic User has already been split up into Cleric and Wizard.

It was never split up. The game as originally published featured 3 classes. At what point was there a wizardcleric class that was split up?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What if I just want to be smashy-thing guy without casting spells or praying or sneaking around or tracking or whatnot? How do I do that without a fighter class?

 

[amerigoV]

I think it would be best if the fighter class would be rolled into the existing classes, Ranger for skirmisher and archer, Paladin for knights and Barbarian for the front line fighter. Because of the tighter focus of those classes it is imo more easy to find non combat activities for them, too.

But by eliminating the fighter, you force those that like that type of melee character into one of three personas - treehugger, holier than thou, and beserker. Plain old "sword for hire" or "soldier" does not always fit into one of these three.

 

[doghead]

I think it would be best if the fighter class would be rolled into the existing classes, Ranger for skirmisher and archer, Paladin for knights and Barbarian for the front line fighter. Because of the tighter focus of those classes it is imo more easy to find non combat activities for them, too.

No it wouldn't. All those other classes come with baggage that sometime you don't want.

thotd

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that to the extent that D&D is to be a class-based game, fighter has to be the first one on the list. Sure, there are many variations and interactions with other archetypes, but I think the guy whose main attribute is swinging a sword (and not any kind of faith, culture, or out of combat skill) has to be there.

 

[steenan]

In my opinion, fighter suffers because it lacks an archetype. It's not clear who he is and what he does (other than "fighting", but that's something everybody in D&D does anyway) - so the class stays generic and flavorless.

I'd happily get rid of fighter.

And if not, the class should be given a strong identity. Including some out of combat activities at which the fighter is definitely the best.