Does D&D need a fighter class?

[doghead]

... but [the fighter] still had no interesting out of combat role.

Maybe mechanically speaking. But the game is not just about the simple application of mechanics to a situation. It is also about role play. In my experience, a lot of really good players have played fighters, and often, despite any perceived mechanical shortcomings, they have proven to be key drivers of the game.

thotd

 

[Ahnehnois]

So would you describe "classes with options no one else outside of the class can do" as backwards design, no matter what?

Yes.

The new school mantra is "play the character you want".

That seems to suggest a classless system or at least one which leans heavily on the importance of feats.

Which is essentially what 3e and its derivatives are. Each class level is taken individually, and serves as little more than a package of d20 bonuses, feats, and class abilities that should be feats and are almost interchangeable what with all the ACFs and substitution levels and such. 3e is basically a classless system that values feats and d20 modifiers, and layers classes thinly on top of them.

In 3e, taking a level of fighter doesn't make you a fighter. It doesn't define your character, establish an archetype for him, determine the rest of his advancement, or cause him to join some in-world caste. It simply means that this level he got a little bit tougher and better at fighting, and perhaps picked up a new feat as well. It's different than a skill-based system only in that he has to gain all of those things at once.

Interestingly, what evolved out of this is that the 3e fighter is almost certainly the most popular class, in terms of the number of characters out there that have a level in fighter, but also one that people rarely play single-classed for any length of time. To me, this is a good thing (though I do think the single-classed fighter should be much better).

Or are there certain abilities it is appropriate for a class to have exclusively?

Magic, maybe. Perhaps things that are highly specific to a certain in-game group. For example, it may be that you simply can't learn wild shape without being specifically trained by the druids, who only deal with you once you've been initiated into their ranks. I don't think it's appropriate that an ability that arises out of someone's aptitude or training should be class-exclusive, but if that ability is not really a property of the character himself but of some external force (as magic might be), then I guess one can justify why the force granting the magic would be picky.

But even if magic were moved over to the skill/feat realm and ostensibly available to everyone, I'd be fine with it.

 

[Quickleaf]

But even if magic were moved over to the skill/feat realm and ostensibly available to everyone, I'd be fine with it.

I see, so your model is that class should become nearly meaningless as a descriptor? And should serve a "classless" style of play, if it's going to be included at all?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it just doesn't capture the D&D I knew as a kid.

 

[The Human Target]

Yes.

Guy with a sword and armor who beats people up is a valuable and common archetype.

They should have some interesting out of combat options though.

 

[pemerton]

In 1e, only fighters- and only single-classed fighters, at that!- could use weapon specialization or double specialization.

This is not correct, though it is true for core 2nd ed AD&D (which dispenses with double specialisation, at least in the PHB).

In UA, both fighters and rangers have access to weapon specialisation. I think both also have access to double specialisation, for those weapons which permit it.

Paladins do not, however - like cavaliers (of which they become a subclass) they have weapons of choice rather than weapon specialisation.

 

[pemerton]

To answer the OP, yes, D&D does need a fighter class in my opinion. If we're looking at a potentially simple class in the spirit of D&Dnext it should be broad enough to capture Conan, Boromir, probably the Musketeers (I don't think they're best modelled as rogues), Greek hoplites, and your bogstandard mediaeval calryman.

In terms of the game's history, I think the best way to do this would be to combine the traditional fighter with elements of the 4e warlord. The key thing a fighter does besides fight is inspire others to fight.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I see, so your model is that class should become nearly meaningless as a descriptor? And should serve a "classless" style of play, if it's going to be included at all?

Well, I don't know about "become". That ship sailed almost fifteen years ago. When you could make a character with three or four different classes, let alone having some of them be variants or prestige classes or racial levels of some sort, class does lose its meaning.

Ever since 3e came out, the typical fighter has not been a single-classed fighter, so what does the term "fighter" really mean in that context other than "way for various characters to pick up some flexible combat-based abilities"?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it just doesn't capture the D&D I knew as a kid.

The D&D I new as a kid was fairly Calvinball-esque. The rules didn't cover much, so one followed them as convenient and made up new rules as the occasion arose. To me, opening up character generation allows one to build all the characters you could build, but also new ones. It does not, however, preserve the process used to create them, or the sensibilities that the limitations of older versions of the game conveyed. Not just removing exclusivity from classes, but opening up multiclassing and letting any race be any class.

At this point, I don't see how there can be a comprehensive D&D without it comprising the spirit of the most delimited version. Limitations can be added in a lot easier than they can be taken away.

 

[the Jester]

This is not correct, though it is true for core 2nd ed AD&D (which dispenses with double specialisation, at least in the PHB).

In UA, both fighters and rangers have access to weapon specialisation. I think both also have access to double specialisation, for those weapons which permit it.

Wow, I just looked in my 1e UA, and you're right- which is something that each of my groups all failed to note for the entirety of our post-UA 1e gaming!

Live and learn... I stand corrected!

 

[GreyLord]

Wow, I just looked in my 1e UA, and you're right- which is something that each of my groups all failed to note for the entirety of our post-UA 1e gaming!

Live and learn... I stand corrected!

Of course if you'll note, while the Ranger is fairly limited on weapon specialization, the Fighter is not as restricted.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I can't be sure but you sound like your view of D&D is quite "gamist": maybe you assume balance has to be there in each pillar separately thus the Fighter (who has little out-of-combat baggage) is stuck at being less than the other martial classes; you also sound like you want combat roles covered, and that's it.

My view is very different, I care for balance either in the bigger picture across all pillars, or on the smallest scale with relation to specific alternatives (e.g. one option should not be straight better than an alternative option in every circumstance). Therefore I actually prefer the Fighter to be slightly superior to all other martial classes, if those have some out-of-combat edge the Fighter doesn't have.

And as for tactical roles, I don't care if two classes cover the same role or if a class covers multiple roles. On the contrary, I find it incredibly irritating when a game forces too much the narrative and the tactical role together instead of giving more freedom.

If there were 30 different specialized martial classes, maybe the Fighter would start being redundant. But 3-5 martial classes aren't remotely enough to cover most concepts of a martial character. There have been more times I wanted to play a martial character that was neither wild, holy nor nature-oriented, than the times I wanted to play one of those.

A game with 30 martial classes, 30 arcane spellcasters, 30 divine spellcasters and 30 scoundrel-types would certainly work fine. But so would a game with Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, and nothing else. And since we're closer to the latter, it would be easier to get rid of Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers instead, and no character concept would stay unsupported.

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

Exactly.