Evolution of the Fighter

[Phaezen]

D&D Fighting-Men

Found this article which went up today quite interesting. It looks at the fighter as it has developed over the last 4 editions of the game.

I am actually quite enjoying the Alumni articles.

The Poll results from the previous Alumni article is also quite interesting:

Poll Results

Last month, we asked you what starter set you first learned the game from. Here now are the results:

1983: 33.6%
1991: 18.6%
1977: 18.3%
1981: 17.5%
2004: 8.9%
2006: 3.0%

​

THis would suggest that a third of the people who play D&D are in thier late 20's to mid 40's

Phaezen

 

[justanobody]

and that's about as complex as the 1st Edition fighter developed

Well sure if you just want to make a fighter sound like a boring combatant.

I guess it means complex in rules because there is has been moreso ever since.

But a fighter was an entry level class that needed little to learn to play, and anybody could jump into a game as one and learn the other classes and things as they played.

The Complete Fighter's Handbook, for example, offered numerous kits (precursors to 3rd Edition prestige classes and 4th Edition builds), including the gladiator.

Why pick the worse kit to put into the article? Why not use the barbarian that transpired through to 3rd as a full-fledged class to compare, and then to 4th as a class-to-be?

The only decent Gladiators came form the Complete Gladiators Handbook for 2nd that was an accessory for Dark Sun, so if anyone wants to read the better version of a Gladiator and has $50 or so to spend (unless online prices have gone down or it exists in PDF format), then check out the Dark Sun for a better gladiator.

Also please don't forget that level progresion and attack per round progression is a bit off from 2nd to 3rd because of the number of levels each offered, so don't let that confuse anyone who reads it.

Some races had level limits in 2nd which means they may not even get to 2/round while 3rd removed those level limits from all races to allow the fighter the greater speed closer to what a thief or ranger would expect.

That said, new 3E prestige classes offered fighters the chance to walk more specialized paths; both the gladiator (Sword and Fist), and the following Thayan gladiator (Champions of Ruin).

What's a Thayan Gladiator? They should have went with something that kept a class through rather than adding those PrCs tot he article to add confusion about the class as it aged. Again I would have chosen the barbarian since it spans all edition from 2nd up for a better direct comparison between "sub"-classes of the fighter without to much confusion of the kits/PrCs.

Plus it would have shown how some of those kits became popular enough to become a class like the barbarian and stayed so through 3rd into 4th(pending full release with playtest version available on DDI).

As for the gladiator, Dragon Magazine recently published the two-part series:

Only available for subscribers during Oct and if/when back issues are available.

The barbarian playtest is of course still free to non-subscribers Dragon 368: Barbarian Playtest which has had its filname changed from the Dragon issue number 368 to 000 so people can still have access to it.

Mostly a nice little article going back through history, but I would have rprefered to see the barbarian much more over the gladiator comparisons for various reasons.

Can only guess which direction the MUs will take into kits and PrCs, but the progresion changes will be a very diffferent article on them. I don't even think any of the wizard kits were made into PrCs.

Once a fighter always a fighter, but in 4th a fighter isn't played much differently than a wizard with all the powers.

Overall I like the looks down memory lane, but not so much all of the commentary on them. Also glad to see they are free for non-subscribers.

 

[questing gm]

I didn't play 1st edition so I was really quite shocked to read this,

Fighters can employ many magical items, including potions; "protection" scrolls; many rings; a few wands; one rod; many other magic items; and all forms of armor, shields and weapons.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why not use the barbarian that transpired through to 3rd as a full-fledged class to compare, and then to 4th as a class-to-be?

Presumably they were illustrating the proto-prestige class aspect of kits, since that's the parallel they explicitly draw. Barbarian is a bad example, since it started as a 1E class and became a 3E base class.

The only decent Gladiators came form the Complete Gladiators Handbook for 2nd that was an accessory for Dark Sun, so if anyone wants to read the better version of a Gladiator and has $50 or so to spend (unless online prices have gone down or it exists in PDF format), then check out the Dark Sun for a better gladiator.

That was a full-fledged class in Dark Sun, wasn't it? Not just a kit? That's hardly a fair comparison.

Plus it would have shown how some of those kits became popular enough to become a class like the barbarian and stayed so through 3rd into 4th(pending full release with playtest version available on DDI).

Barbarian was a class in 1E. A popular one from UA. That's why it was a class in 3E, not because it was a kit in 2E.

 

[justanobody]

I didn't play 1st edition so I was really quite shocked to read this,

For more information you should check out a copy of that DMG.

Rod of Lordly Might was usable only by fighters.

Wand of Magic Missiles were usable by any class, as a few others.

Other items had specific classes that could only use them as well. Some only by cleric, some by Cleric and Mage, and some only by Theif. A few things were usable by anyone EXCEPT a fighter. But the Rod of Lordly Might was the fighters claim to fame for only his use.

Page 122 if you can find a 1st edition DMG and care to look them all over in the Rods/Staves/Wands section.

Presumably they were illustrating the proto-prestige class aspect of kits, since that's the parallel they explicitly draw. Barbarian is a bad example, since it started as a 1E class and became a 3E base class.

Not in the PHB.

Barbarian came first TMK in Dark Sun

That was a full-fledged class in Dark Sun, wasn't it? Not just a kit? That's hardly a fair comparison.

Compared to the barbarian in 3rd it would be more fair than the watered-down barbarian kit that didn't have the Dark Sun restraints.

Barbarian was a class in 1E. A popular one from UA. That's why it was a class in 3E, not because it was a kit in 2E.

~cough~ 1.5 ~cough~

And in UA the barbarian was a sub-class of fighter. Not a full class as a Cavalier was at the time. Which had Paladin as a sub-class.

I would say the sub-classes are closer to the PrCs than the kits. But PrCs annoy me either way.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Not in the PHB.

Barbarian came first TMK in Dark Sun

Nope. It came years before in Unearthed Arcana. (With some earlier references in more ephemeral publications.)

 

[justanobody]

Nope. It came years before in Unearthed Arcana. (With some earlier references in more ephemeral publications.)

Dates confirmed. Guess we didn't delve into UA until after we got done with our current game. Don't like adding new stuff in the middle, and we didn't buy every book originally when it came out.

 

[Grimstaff]

Nope. It came years before in Unearthed Arcana. (With some earlier references in more ephemeral publications.)

B/X Barbarian - Fighter w/battle-axe

B/X Ranger - Fighter w/hooded cloak

B/X Paladin - Fighter w/blessed sword

B/X Warlord - Fighter w/Int score in excess of 9

 

[Fifth Element]

Barbarian came first TMK in Dark Sun

Nope. Unearthed Arcana. Published in 1985.

~cough~ 1.5 ~cough~

No such thing. That's something like saying the Complete Fighter's Handbook was 2.5. Unearthed Arcana had new options, like a splatbook.

And in UA the barbarian was a sub-class of fighter. Not a full class as a Cavalier was at the time. Which had Paladin as a sub-class.

Subclass was a meaningless distinction, just a way of grouping classes. That's like saying the illusionist wasn't a full class, it was just a subclass of magic-user. The barbarian was a class, with its own abilities, Hit Dice, experience progression, etc.

I would say the sub-classes are closer to the PrCs than the kits. But PrCs annoy me either way.

You'd be wrong. Most kits aren't very much like prestige classes, but the subclasses are nothing like prestige classes. They were independent classes. The bard was a prestige class in 1E.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I'm amazed at the flexibility of the 3.X fighter. One of my favorite characters was a fighter who was built upon Dex, Wis, and Int instead of Str and Con. He was a blast to play and a sound build in regards to power level (he did mix in levels of Monk though )

It is one of my growing complaints about 4E - build straight jackets. If you are playing a fighter, making Int or Dex your highest stat is just foolish. The game (as it is now) just doesn't support a non-Str fighter.

Look at just the base 3E book

• Str Fighter had the Power Attack Feat line
• Int Fighter had the Combat Expertise line
• Dex Fighter had the Dodge Feat line
• Two Weapon Fighting feat line
• Ranged Fighter feat line
• Toughness Fighter feats (Toughness, Die Hard, etc)
• Weapon Master Feat Line

I miss this flexibility