Evolution of the Fighter

[TerraDave]

The article could have been better, the whole gladiator thing just confused it. Not mentioning the dark sun class was odd.

Also, EGGs barbarian debuted in Dragon many, many years ago. Though the "berserker" as a monster, and I think an ODD class (also in Dragon?), go back to the 70s.

 

[Delta]

The Poll results from the previous Alumni article is also quite interesting... This would suggest that a third of the people who play D&D are in thier late 20's to mid 40's

That's very similar to a poll done here at ENWorld 2 years ago:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/171146-when-did-you-start-playing-d-d.html

While non-scientific (not a random sample), having seen this in multiple places, I'm guessing that that's pretty much exactly what the D&D-playing demographic looks like.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

An interesting point from earlier editions that I never thought about before is that once you build a 'freehold' and the taxes start rolling in you can level automatically without adventuring. (Assuming that you use the GP = XP rules, which we never did. And it would take a loooong time!)

And it may just be mostly fluff, but I'm really irked by the Fighter = Defender concept of 4E. A fighter is supposed to fight dang blast it!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the key to 4e is not looking at the classes, but looking at roles. Instead of saying "I want a high dexterity fighter who does damage" you'd say "I want a high dexterity striker." Sure, it's not an actual fighter, but...er...that's the way the game goes, really. Roles are more important then classes.

 

[T. Foster]

An interesting point from earlier editions that I never thought about before is that once you build a 'freehold' and the taxes start rolling in you can level automatically without adventuring. (Assuming that you use the GP = XP rules, which we never did. And it would take a loooong time!)

A name-level fighter in OD&D requires 120,000 XP per level. A typical barony (per D&D vol. III, p. 24) has 2-8 villages of 100-400 inhabitants each, so assuming an average population, 10 GP per inhabitant per year in taxes means it will take the fighter about 10 years to level up with no adventuring. Of course, if he somehow through investments manages to get the population of his barony up to 12,000 then he'll level up automatically every year

Clerics actually have it better, because they only need 100,000 XP per level and get double the tax income, so it will only take a cleric 4 years per level with an average-population barony (and they only need a population of 5,000 to net a level a year -- that's not so far outside the possible starting range!).

Name-level magic-users lose out here -- they can't form a barony and get free tax income/XP -- but this is more than balanced by their ability to make their own magic items.

 

[Remathilis]

A name-level fighter in OD&D requires 120,000 XP per level. A typical barony (per D&D vol. III, p. 24) has 2-8 villages of 100-400 inhabitants each, so assuming an average population, 10 GP per inhabitant per year in taxes means it will take the fighter about 10 years to level up with no adventuring. Of course, if he somehow through investments manages to get the population of his barony up to 12,000 then he'll level up automatically every year

Clerics actually have it better, because they only need 100,000 XP per level and get double the tax income, so it will only take a cleric 4 years per level with an average-population barony (and they only need a population of 5,000 to net a level a year -- that's not so far outside the possible starting range!).

Name-level magic-users lose out here -- they can't form a barony and get free tax income/XP -- but this is more than balanced by their ability to make their own magic items.

... and I think I just figured out where all those high-level NPCs came from!

 

[justanobody]

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

2.5 was the Player's/DM Option series

Combat and Tactics, Spells and Magic, etc

 

[Runestar]

Wasn't fighter a 1st lv druid class feature?

 

[Serendipity]

In other words, fighters were meant to be strong, hit well in combat, and -- if they survived long enough -- have the opportunity to build their own castle . . . and that's about as complex as the 1st Edition fighter developed.

When 3rd edition released with its wealth of skills, feats, and options, the fighter still existed as a rather basic class, with excellent base attack bonuses and many extra feats . . . but little else in terms of special class features. Their number of attacks per round, however, did increase fairly dramatically:

Ah yes, because additional complexity makes anything better. I love how the article doesn't provide framing context (like how fighter, rangers, and paladins were the only classes to *get* multiple attacks)

You know, if I'm playing a fighter, presumably it's because I want to play a character whose primary skillset includes weapons and armor and killin' things (this is a generalization of course) - why does a fighter need "extra powers"? If I want that, I'll play Exalted thanks.

It is likely just my perception but it seems that a lot of these articles are really just "see how much better 4e is than previous, see see??" I grant that they need to do things to sell product but....the notion of using what is ostensibly directly game pertinent material (which was, I thought, the entire point of the digital initiative) to act as marketing is kind of a turn off.
It reminds me of that guy everyone knows (okay, round here it's more than one person) that is incapable of holding a conversation about computers without evangelizing for Apple.

 

[Grazzt]

The bard was a prestige class in 1E.

So was the Thief-Acrobat, maybe even moreso than the bard (because you left off thieving more or less and gained your fun acrobat stuff)