Evolution of the Fighter

[thecasualoblivion]

The way I look at it is this:

In 2E, if I wanted to smash things in the face in hand to hand combat, a single classed Fighter will generally do a better job of it in terms of game mechanics than any other character choice.

In 3E, if I want to smash things in the face in hand to hand combat, a single classed Fighter is a suboptimal choice, and possibly not even top 10.

Off the top of my head, 10 classes/builds I would rank above the Fighter in terms of melee combat over the long term:

1. DMM Cleric
2. Druid
3. A well designed Gish(high BAB and as close to full Wizard/Sorcerer spellcasting as possible, though this sucks at low levels)
4. Daring Outlaw or another Rogue build designed to maximize BAB and Sneak Attack
5. Duskblade
6. Psychic Warrior
7. Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker
8. Warblade
9. Crusader
10. Psionic Gish based on Illithid Slayer

Note: all ten of these have vastly more interesting non-combat options

Its a matter of if I want to use game mechanics to stomp things, Fighter is not the way to do it.

 

[Darkwolf71]

How do you feel your prediction turned out?

I was a bit off. It had very little about 4e, that was a suprise, and it wasn't as hard on the previous versions as I expected, but it wasn't overly kind to them either.

 

[RFisher]

Not always. The effectiveness of this arbitration is really only as effective as the degree of competency of the DM himself, and the efficacy of his rulings.

My experience has been that just about anyone can do a good enough job for an RPG. With just a little maturity and a willingness to enlist the aid of the players in making his rulings, and you’ve got not just a fair DM but a good one.

Though I realize that is contrary to popular opinion. I think a few bad apples have spoiled people for the bunch.

My experience says that rules never really make a better DM; only maturity and experience.

I feel it is still better to have a properly designed mechanical framework for the fighter (and all other areas as well), to save the DM the hassle of having to invoke rule zero, much less agonize over how best to interpret said rule.

At least for me, I feel that just because the DM can invoke rule zero does not necessarily mean that he should.

There are plenty of conventional games with great mechanical frameworks. What sets RPGs apart (for me) is that the group can come up with judgements—covering a wider scope—better and faster than any set of rules can. When we’re just following rules, it sucks the life out of the game for me. So, for me, the DM really should “invoke rule zero” regularly.

And actually, this is a hard thing for me as DM. I tend to be a very indecisive person, so I’m really more comfortable invoking a rule than making a judgement. I have to really push myself in this, because then I’m happier with the results.

I guess the other disconnect between what you want from the game and what I want is... It’s more about the adventuring for me than my PC’s abilities. B/X D&D has all the mechanical framework for a fighter that I need. A 3e fighter is overkill to me. (I suspect a 4e fighter will still be overkill but less than a 3e fighter.) In fact, the 3e fighter kind of annoys me because it codifies all these non-fighter things and then puts all kinds of obstacles between them and my fighter. (Which I can mitigate in various ways, but usually ways that involve additional complications.)

Hmm...it’s late...I’m probably rambling now... ^_^

 

[Hussar]

Of course they could "try". Bfore the thief class was introduced they'd have had just as good a chance as clerics and magic-users.

I suppose I should ammend my post to not reflect OD&D. Then again, since we're discussing fighters and not "Fighting Man" it would be a fair assumption that we're NOT discussing OD&D.

Then again, given that there was basically zero chance of picking pockets before the thief class was introduced (unless the DM decided there was a chance through fiat) my point still stands. By the rules, no one could pick pockets.

 

[pawsplay]

Off the top of my head, 10 classes/builds I would rank above the Fighter in terms of melee combat over the long term:

1. DMM Cleric
2. Druid
3. A well designed Gish(high BAB and as close to full Wizard/Sorcerer spellcasting as possible, though this sucks at low levels)
4. Daring Outlaw or another Rogue build designed to maximize BAB and Sneak Attack
5. Duskblade
6. Psychic Warrior
7. Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker
8. Warblade
9. Crusader
10. Psionic Gish based on Illithid Slayer

Clerics and Druids are very strong in some formats. I will also grant the Duskblade and Warblade are also pretty strong, and have an edge outside pure melee. But Psychic Warrior? I've never seen a Psychic Warrior that wasn't better with some fighter in it or Illithid Slayer.

Also, the fighter is a bit of a triathlete. Most of those builds are not going to have much in the way of ranged attacks, excepting the fighter-magic-user, who is correspondingly weaker in the Fortitude and hp department.

 

[Remathilis]

Clerics and Druids are very strong in some formats. I will also grant the Duskblade and Warblade are also pretty strong, and have an edge outside pure melee. But Psychic Warrior? I've never seen a Psychic Warrior that wasn't better with some fighter in it or Illithid Slayer.

Also, the fighter is a bit of a triathlete. Most of those builds are not going to have much in the way of ranged attacks, excepting the fighter-magic-user, who is correspondingly weaker in the Fortitude and hp department.

Two Words: Deep Impact. Being able to resolve a fully-charged +4d8 psychic attack as a touch attack can bring some pain to even the highest AC dragon!

 

[pawsplay]

Two Words: Deep Impact. Being able to resolve a fully-charged +4d8 psychic attack as a touch attack can bring some pain to even the highest AC dragon!

Strictly speaking, fighters and rogues can benefit from Deep Impact as well.

 

[justanobody]

I suppose I should ammend my post to not reflect OD&D. Then again, since we're discussing fighters and not "Fighting Man" it would be a fair assumption that we're NOT discussing OD&D.

The article seems to disagree as ALL iterations of the "fighter" are represented in it. It is named, and starts out with "fighting men".

 

[Fifth Element]

The article seems to disagree as ALL iterations of the "fighter" are represented in it. It is named, and starts out with "fighting men".

True, but they don't actually discuss the class, just mention that it's in OD&D. The first class actually discussed is the 1E fighter.

 

[justanobody]

True, but they don't actually discuss the class, just mention that it's in OD&D. The first class actually discussed is the 1E fighter.

Like the other renditions, they gave the full description of fighting-men.

Did you want a write-up about them versus the non-existence of the game?

OK, here goes.

No D&D:

There is no game, so there is no information.

OD&D:

Now you can, for the first time, use a fighting man to travel through the world of Dungeons and Dragons.

Insert that at the top of the article and you have a write-up comparing something that never existed with its first rendition.

Actually the other descriptions were not full while 1st and OD&D ones seem to be in their entirety.