From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[Midknightsun]

Let me use an example from Lord of the Rings Online, just because I'm familiar with it and it illustrates my thoughts. Going into that game, I wanted to play a warrior-type; I was thinking primarily of Haldir from the movie versions, switching between bows and swords as applicable. Instead I was presented with the option of playing "the ranged damage guy made of tissue paper" (Hunter), "the melee damage guy made of tissue paper" (Champion), or "the melee meatshield who can't hurt anybody" (Guardian). None of which were what I wanted! I wanted a flexible warrior who could adapt to the situation.

LOTRO is a MMO, of course, and as such is limited in scope -- thus, it's at least understandable that your character choices are "A, B, or C" with very little blending. Not desirable, mind you, but at least understandable. Computers are very limited.

The human imagination is not, however. The idea that a character should be designed around doing one particular thing (especially in combat) is going backwards in game design. Might as well return to the days when magic-users couldn't even so much as pick up a sword.

So, I'm not getting this. . . you wanted a warrior type that could do . . . . everything? If they had the option of the tank that could do boatloads of damage, t'would be a bit of a no-brainer, dont you think? The human imagination can imagine a bunch of things that don't work in a cooperative game, so at some point imagination needs to take a chill pill. And I don't think the magic-user example really applies. I'm sure a fighter could still pick up a bow and be rather useful with it in 4e, whereas the magic-user could not back in the day, hit the planet if he dropped the sword on it.

Besides the fact that I can't even think of any historical archetypical warriors who could manage this complete armed omnivorization, it seems a high standard to set, IMHO. And if that's the case, why bother having other classes? We'll just call them all "fighter", and call it a day. I'm not trying to attack you, its just that I've seen this very same reply numerous times and I have yet to understand why putting some focus into the fighter class is a bad thing. Complete flexibility is the realm of classless sytems, period. There are plenty of them, some even pretty good. D&D has never been one of them. Ever. Maybe someday it will be, who knows.

 

[sidonunspa]

No, not all the time. All it means is that the fighter class mechanics are designed so that the class fills that role the best. Protecting the squishy wizard has always been one of a fighter's "jobs" in-game. Now the rules are better designed to reflect that.

True, but that’s not “every warrior” I find that most people who play Fighters want to be the guy that charges into combat to unleash carnage upon their opponents.

Think Brad Pitt in Troy, was he "protecting" anyone? No, he was killing anyone who was in his way.

Look at “300”, Mad Martigan, all the fighter types in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never looked at them and thought, wow look how they are protecting the guys in the back….

Its MMO tactics brought into RPGs

 

[CardinalXimenes]

I like the ranger, but I'd also like to be able to play an archer who just had a natural affinity for the bow and became proficient in its use while serving in the city watch. Maybe he's got some perception skills, maybe some social skills from dealing with citizens and fellow soldiers, but otherwise he's just really freaking good with the bow. But that's not the role of a defender, so therefore that character option has seemingly been stricken from the fighter's suite of abilities, along with most any other combat option that doesn't involve going toe-to-toe and hitting something in the face with a manufactured weapon. That's disappointing.

A fighter can use a bow just fine, so simply being proficient at bow usage doesn't appear to be the issue here. The evident issue is access to a ranger's suite of bow-related abilities, since the degree of bowy awesomeness possessed by a character will always be measured against possessors of those abilities. Because fighters can't acquire those talents without extra resource expenditure, it appears you're seeing a problem.

I'm not seeing it. Fighters are Defenders, and rangers are Strikers. If you don't want your fighter-archer's bow skills to be overshadowed by the ranger-archer, you're going to need to move the entire suite of bow talents to the fighter, or else your archer-centric concept will always be better off picking ranger over fighter. If you do move the entire tree over to the fighters, then you don't have a Defender any more, you have a melee Defender class that can alternatively turn into a ranged Striker without any crosstraining costs.

I think it has to be remembered that the fighter shtick _is not_ "If you want to master any weapon, pick me!" It is now "If you want to be a melee Defender, pick me!". Objecting that the fighter now is no longer the optimal choice for weapon mastery in any arbitrary weapon is a complaint about what a fighter does now, not a complaint that the fighter is poorly designed for its shtick. Default archer-centric concepts are rangers now. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Rechan]

True, but that’s not “every warrior” I find that most people who play Fighters want to be the guy that charges into combat to unleash carnage upon their opponents.

Think Brad Pitt in Troy, was he "protecting" anyone? No, he was killing anyone who was in his way.

Look at “300”, Mad Martigan, all the fighter types in the Lord of the Rings movies.

Part of Defending is getting the monster's attention and making it want to focus on you.

Think of a bull fighter. His job isn't to stand there, stare the bull in the eye, and just hit it until the bull falls down - he's engaging the bull, making it focus on him. Even if there were people also in the ring, pelting the bull with arrows, the bull fighter is still going to be the guy trying to make the bull charge him.

Let's take your example of the fighter charging in and whooping monster ass. Well, the fighter charges in, whoops ass - wait what's that? One of the monsters wants to get past him to get the people in the back? "No you don't" say sthe fighter, "You're staying here, so I can beat your ass" - he uses his mastery of Attacks of Opportunity to beat the thing in the skull when it tries to get around him. The defender role has powers that focus on the defender incentive to fight them.

By the fighter charging into the room, he's BOTH whooping monster ass AND preventing them from getting past him. The fighter isn't just a body guard standing in front of the wizard - he can do that thirty, forty feet ahead.

Besides, one of the focuses of the fighter is Offense. Two handed weapons. That's not very body-guardy - that's very much "Stomping up to the monster and hitting it until it's dead".

 

[Ahrimon]

True, but that’s not “every warrior” I find that most people who play Fighters want to be the guy that charges into combat to unleash carnage upon their opponents.

Think Brad Pitt in Troy, was he "protecting" anyone? No, he was killing anyone who was in his way.

Look at “300”, Mad Martigan, all the fighter types in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never looked at them and thought, wow look how they are protecting the guys in the back….

Its MMO tactics brought into RPGs

See, I don't read "defender" as being the guy who stands there getting beaten on so that the others are safe. I see it as the guy who's up front and making damned hard for the bad guy to get behind him. 300 (the movie) was a perfect example of defenders. They had thier sheild walls, thier tactical training, etc. If someone got by them it was generally because they let them knowing that the next rank was going to decimate the guy. They put the hurt on everyone through defensive tactics.

I honestly don't know why everyone looks at the limited 4e information we have with myopic tunnel vision and then screams and beats their chest about how DnD is being destroyed. What happened to the open thought processes that we as gamers are supposed to take pride in? As morpheus said: Free your mind.

 

[Rechan]

So, I'm not getting this. . . you wanted a warrior type that could do . . . . everything? If they had the option of the tank that could do boatloads of damage, t'would be a bit of a no-brainer, dont you think? The human imagination can imagine a bunch of things that don't work in a cooperative game, so at some point imagination needs to take a chill pill. And I don't think the magic-user example really applies. I'm sure a fighter could still pick up a bow and be rather useful with it in 4e, whereas the magic-user could not back in the day, hit the planet if he dropped the sword on it.

Reminds me of City of Heroes, actually.

Before City of Heroes implemented a class system, they had a free system that made all the powers mix-and-matchable.

So what did people do? Everyone and their dog picked the biggest, baddest defensive power and the biggest, baddest blasting power, and called it a day, because it was the no brainer option.

 

[Fifth Element]

Think Brad Pitt in Troy, was he "protecting" anyone? No, he was killing anyone who was in his way.

Look at “300”, Mad Martigan, all the fighter types in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never looked at them and thought, wow look how they are protecting the guys in the back….

Indeed. But again this is getting caught up on the class names. The examples you provide may be better described as strikers in 4E terminology. The best class to represent them might not be "fighter" (I don't know, mind you). Don't fixate on the class and then complain that it doesn't do a concept very well. Start with the concept, then choose the class that fits best.

 

[Bishmon]

I honestly don't know why everyone looks at the limited 4e information we have with myopic tunnel vision and then screams and beats their chest about how DnD is being destroyed. What happened to the open thought processes that we as gamers are supposed to take pride in? As morpheus said: Free your mind.

Seriously? Was that characterization necessary?

 

[Fifth Element]

Seriously? Was that characterization necessary?

Probably not. But that's what the "report post" button is for.

 

[Cadfan]

Yes, it probably was.

Its been quite clearly stated that a fighter can function by going defensive (weapon + shield), or offensive (two handed weapon), or control, which I'm betting is reach weapons. Note the presence of "offensive." If your goal is to wade into the middle of the fight and beat on things with a sharp piece of metal, fighter appears to be the class for you.

This has been clear for some time.