Does D&D need a fighter class?

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I had a few articles about this (a) (b).

I still think that a "classless system within which a DM can make a very specific class" helps resolve most of these conflicts.

So looking at something very specific and contextual and archetypal: there is an organization in the world called the Grey Dragon Mercenary company, and those folks are tough and grim and, well, dangerous mercenary types, and so they have class abilities like proficiencies with medium armor (nothing to heavy to march in), with wicked-looking weapons, with skills like Intimidate and extra languages (they don't care who they take their contract from!) and combat maneuvers that focus on exploiting advantages (sneak attack?) and tenaciously holding on when things get rough (second wind?). They are a group in the world, and belonging to them has meaning and gives you certain abilities.

That's the class. Very specific.

But then, that class is built of bits and fobs that can all be removed and altered. So the proficiency package and the skills and the combat manuevers -- maybe you make their rival group, the Heralds of Dawn, by just moving their skill set from Intimidate to Diplomacy and giving them swords instead of scythes. It's a new class, it is a new archetype, but it is trivial to make that change. Or maybe you swap out their weapons and armor entirely and get a group of grim mercenary wizards. Or whatever.

And if you want to go "classless" within that, it's transparent how you would.

Ultimately, a classless system that nonetheless assumes that specific (very flexible) classes are in use.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

Thanks for posting that This is how I see class balance too, as something bigger than "who has got the best ability to kill monsters", that extends across all pillars of play. For example, compare tne typical D&D overland travel scenario to The One Ring's travel rules and it's pretty clear that in D&D rangers dominate (at least until the spellcasters starting casting teleport) while in The One Ring exploration involves all characters.

My opinion is that in D&D every character should have a meaningful way to contribute whether it's combat, a "skill challenge", exploring, or negotiation. They don't have to all be equal, but if it's part of the game they shouldn't feel like they have to twiddle their thumbs while the bard talks or the fighter fights.
[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]
There is a usefulness to having a common set of classes as the default. They create a common shorthand for gamers, and are particularly helpful for new players and younger players (and even older players who appreciate the archetypes embedded in D&D).

It's easy for us hardcore experienced gamers - who often know exactly what sort of character we want and balk when the rules limit us - to lose sight of new players coming into the hobby who identify with classic tropes like "wizard" or "knight in shining armor" or "thief."

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.

And this I couldn't agree with more! Balance is important, but I also have seen players choose to be fighters and end up becoming lynchpins of the entire party.

Of course, I've seen my fair share of "Biggus Dickus" & "Joe" type fighters, but I try not to dwell on those

When I played in my friend's 3e campaign involving Against the Giants, I sat in on a session first and saw they sorely lacked a tank. And I love playing fighters, so I told my friend that's what I was thinking of playing, and he advised me to play a Knight since the Fighter was "underpowered." So I did. Heck, compared to the rest of the spellcasting party my Knight was still a weaker choice. But because I'm a fairly old school player I played an important role as instigator when they got stuck pondering what to do, paid attention to the story and took notes, got invested in the game world, and also was a good tank (for what that is worth in 3e). Even though I came in late, I played an important role in the party despite playing a mechanically inferior class.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is a usefulness to having a common set of classes as the default. They create a common shorthand for gamers, and are particularly helpful for new players and younger players (and even older players who appreciate the archetypes embedded in D&D).

It's easy for us hardcore experienced gamers - who often know exactly what sort of character we want and balk when the rules limit us - to lose sight of new players coming into the hobby who identify with classic tropes like "wizard" or "knight in shining armor" or "thief."

That's actually where the specific classes within the flexible framework are powerful, better than even D&D's usual fare.

"Fighter" and "rogue" and even "wizard" don't give a newbie much to hang a character concept on. Everyone fights, nobody follows the laws, magic is something every PC eventually uses to some degree, and none of that speaks to who your friends or enemies are or why you might go on adventures. It's open-ended and nebulous.

But, "Thief of the Red Hand" is a meaty hook, all contextual and rich in detail, with associated iconography and Proper Nouns. So is "Alteric Town Guard" and "Thaumaturgy Professor of the Arcane Academy."

And when all of those fit within a flexible framework that lets you change pretty much any part of those for something else, you still capture the flexibility that old hats value, better than the class structure in D&D has ever really done, even at its most open-ended so far.

This is a situation where the middle ground, I think, doesn't really satisfy either party, but when you go to both extremes simultaneously, there's a good harmony.

 

[pemerton]

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

But the ranger's limits still permit access to the best weapons on the game: longsword, two-handed sword, longbow. So it's not that much of a limitation!

 

[GreyLord]

But the ranger's limits still permit access to the best weapons on the game: longsword, two-handed sword, longbow. So it's not that much of a limitation!

I'd have to look again, but I could swear it was only the Longsword and longbow. Whether they are the best in the game is opinion of course. I prefer the Bastard sword for being one or two handed dependant on situation and how much damage you're looking for in the situation vs. defense with a shield.

Or if you're using the weapon vs. tables...it could also depend on what type of enemies you are facing in the campaign.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]
The specific class model could work to bridge the pro-class / anti-class camps.

I think it requires some things from the game system in order to work:
- A fairly lightweight class structure, with lots of skills/feats
- Lots of design work balancing all the permutations against each other
- A list of predefined classes (using the build-a-class system) that evoke traditional D&D

Definitely achieveable and I'd have no problem with that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]
The specific class model could work to bridge the pro-class / anti-class camps.

I think it requires some things from the game system in order to work:
- A fairly lightweight class structure, with lots of skills/feats
- Lots of design work balancing all the permutations against each other
- A list of predefined classes (using the build-a-class system) that evoke traditional D&D

Definitely achieveable and I'd have no problem with that.

I totally agree. I think it's beneficial that D&D has had some tension with this over the various editions, because it has a few "traditional" models we can follow.

Like, a 1e/2e fighter had some assumptions about the kind of "fighter" they would be. Specialized in various weapons. Able to use almost any kind of gear. And becoming a baron at a higher levels, building a castle and attracting guards.

3e sort of had that kind of fighter within it (weapon focus feats + exotic weapon feats + leadership), but left it much more a la carte, so it became pretty general. And that "support" wasn't always a smart player move when the system rewarded narrow specialties more than general skills.

4e's fighter had some similarities (broad equipment selection), but ditched the loyal followers in favor of Defendery stuff and some more elaborate moves.

So I'm imagining a good place to start for a D&D-esque fighter might be some sort of organization of weapon and armor experts, who learn the arts of war in a semi-military educational environment, a "boot camp" for martial arts, where they drill with different weapons and armor each day, and eventually get their focus (specialization) in one. This organization slays monsters and civilizes territories, building keeps and castles on monster-infested lands, expanding in a series of small baronies.

So giving it a proper noun, we have a class that is, say, "Keeper of the Border Baronies," that gets skills related to history, tactics, weapons, armor, shields, etc. They learn monster lore and basic construction and engineering, smithing, and other crafts. They also learn things like administration and leadership. We're looking at something like a Roy: STR/INT/CHA (probably closer to a 4e Warlord in flavor than a 4e Fighter), with a robust CON likely as well. Their mechanic may revolve around the Specialization bonus (just a raw big bonus onto attack and damage), and their particular abilities might involve special attacks using their assorted weapons (I'm thinking something like the BEMCI weapon tables, and 4e's martial stances, or at-will-ified powers).

That's a specific kind of fairly archetypal D&D fighter. It embraces its specificity, and it doesn't represent istself as THE TRUE FIGHTER, though, which is key. Because then a fan of 4e's martial dalies can come in and maybe swap out the simple/striaghtforward/boring Specialization bonus for unique daily powers. Or someone who wanted to be a courtly knight might replace some of those crafting skills with more CHA skills. Or someone who just wants to hit things with a big axe and call it good might trade off some of those broad weapon/armor/shield proficiencies for some survival skills

 

[JamesonCourage]

"Fighter" and "rogue" and even "wizard" don't give a newbie much to hang a character concept on. Everyone fights, nobody follows the laws, magic is something every PC eventually uses to some degree, and none of that speaks to who your friends or enemies are or why you might go on adventures. It's open-ended and nebulous.

My very first official character was a Wheel of Time character. There were classes like Noble (tied into the political games specific to the setting), Algai'd'siswai (specific warriors from the desert with a specific mindset in the setting), Initiate (as in the Aes Sedai, specific spellcasters from the setting), and the Wilder (untrained user of the One Power, a specific type of magic user from the setting).

I chose an Armsman (basically a Fighter). It was all bonus feats. I wanted to be a soldier. I wanted something straightforward, and I got all the hooks I needed from the game prompts ("where did you get your training?" "where did you get your equipment?" "how did you end up where you are?").

When I made classes for my RPG, I made some very specific classes: Blacksoul, Bloodletter, Hand of Dawn, Magician of Nyt, Order of the Obsidian Flame, Scarred Man. I also have some very open-ended classes (Berserker, Factotum, Ranger, Warrior).

In my experience, a good mix of both is necessary if you're trying to cover a lot of character concepts while also strengthening your setting. There are standard guards (Warriors) and Craftsmen (Factotum) and Sages (Factotum) and so on, and there are highlights specific to your setting (Blacksoul, Bloodletter, Hand of Dawn, Magician of Nyt, Order of the Obsidian Flame, Scarred Man).

I think the real problem can come from the mundane classes feeling "generic" in comparison to the supernatural ones. To a degree, though, that's very understandable. We can basically have ideas of "generic" rangers or warriors or sages or craftsmen, but magic doesn't really have a "generic" default.

But, "Thief of the Red Hand" is a meaty hook, all contextual and rich in detail, with associated iconography and Proper Nouns. So is "Alteric Town Guard" and "Thaumaturgy Professor of the Arcane Academy."

I don't think I'd mind any of those, as long as there were a couple conditions that were met:
(1) There was explicit buy-in for this campaign that we were to make characters with these specific backgrounds. This isn't any different than "make sure your characters have a reason to be together" or "no humans in this campaign" or the like.
(2) The game system allowed for more than this; having a generic thief is more desirable for me than only a "Thief of the Red Hand" is.

I can totally buy into a campaign with a "Thief of the Red Hand" and "Alteric Town Guard" as classes. I can't buy into that being all there is for me to play, though.

And, in a class-based game, I'm not really excited about making 5-15 classes every campaign, especially when NPCs follow different rules.

And when all of those fit within a flexible framework that lets you change pretty much any part of those for something else, you still capture the flexibility that old hats value, better than the class structure in D&D has ever really done, even at its most open-ended so far.

This is a situation where the middle ground, I think, doesn't really satisfy either party, but when you go to both extremes simultaneously, there's a good harmony.

I think, honestly, that a mix of very setting-specific stuff and very generic stuff is better; I'd much rather have a Druid and Bard mixed in with the Fighter than your Thief of the Red Hand and Alteric Town Guard and nothing generic for me to use. At least, I have no interest in your method in the long term, especially if it requires a lot of work.

But, that's just me. Curious if you can show me how you think it'd be easy. Genuinely curious.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can totally buy into a campaign with a "Thief of the Red Hand" and "Alteric Town Guard" as classes. I can't buy into that being all there is for me to play, though.

And, in a class-based game, I'm not really excited about making 5-15 classes every campaign, especially when NPCs follow different rules.

I think, honestly, that a mix of very setting-specific stuff and very generic stuff is better; I'd much rather have a Druid and Bard mixed in with the Fighter than your Thief of the Red Hand and Alteric Town Guard and nothing generic for me to use. At least, I have no interest in your method in the long term, especially if it requires a lot of work.

But, that's just me. Curious if you can show me how you think it'd be easy. Genuinely curious.

The most obvious solution to that possible workload is that this is what splats/fans/the OGL is for -- more classes become easy and encouraged, because they're all very specific. Even with a "basic rules only" game, though, you could export this to the players -- have them whip up the class they want to play, if the rules are robust enough all you'd need is narrative veto power.

Though the workload itself needn't be great. You can look at minor changes to existing classes as a way of making them specific to your game. Swap out the Thief of the Red Hand's "Sneak Attack" core mechanic and replace it with perhaps some sort of "Divine Magic" mechanic and now you've got a priesthood of a god of trickery and deceit! It's a new class (since every class is very specific), but the work involved was really quite minor: use Tab B instead of Tab C. Take the yellow lego block and replace it with the blue one.

The hardest part is getting the break points right, and I took a stab at that in the articles (Background for non-combat skills, Basic Abilities for weapon/armor types, a Core Mechanic to fuel your powers, and Class Abilities that define what you get as you level). I think it's viable, though I don't think it's quite all that I'd want personally...lots of room for improvement!

 

[pemerton]

if you're using the weapon vs. tables...it could also depend on what type of enemies you are facing in the campaign.

This is what makes the two-handed sword such a good weapon!