I don't want to be a druid/cleric, I want to be a fighter.

[Crothian]

A number of years ago I'm playing in some 3e off the books high level game at Gen Con with people I know. The 15th level cleric is buffed up for the final fight. The guy playing the Wizard leans over to me and says "How angry do you think he'll get if I accidentally target him with a greater dispel magic?" It is one of the big weakness of the buffed up cleric that it seems few DMs were willing to do to them.

 

[Mercule]

I'll play the fighter. Then again, I'm usually the DM, so it's a mismatch.

As a DM, the numerical superiority isn't a big deal. If you're a cleric our druid, you're beholden to a deity or nature itself, and wrote unto you if you use that power casually or in a way that doesn't benefit your calling. Never say never, but neither of those classes will typically just go on a dungeon raid. I also have no problem telling the player, "You haven't really seemed too concerned about your doctrine. Maybe you should consider taking this level as Fighter instead of cleric." The second conversation like that isn't phrased as a suggestion.

More than any other class, clerics have huge role-playing requirements. Even paladins should get off easy by comparison. Paladins are fighters so pure of heart that they're given some perks to help them fight. Clerics have such loyalty, fervor, or like-mindedness to their deity that they're set apart from even other priests by the power and blessings they receive. Of you aren't willing to play that concept, then don't bother with making a cleric for my table.

 

[Campbell]

For me the issue was always reconciling my desire for a mechanically engaging play experience with the conceptual desire that matched up with the disciplined warrior archetype. During the 3e era, I played around with more martially oriented clerics originally. Then I moved onto psychic warriors who were a much better conceptual match. Eventually I lobbied for using Mutants and Masterminds for our D&D-esque games.

 

[TwoSix]

I'll play the fighter. Then again, I'm usually the DM, so it's a mismatch.

As a DM, the numerical superiority isn't a big deal. If you're a cleric our druid, you're beholden to a deity or nature itself, and wrote unto you if you use that power casually or in a way that doesn't benefit your calling. Never say never, but neither of those classes will typically just go on a dungeon raid. I also have no problem telling the player, "You haven't really seemed too concerned about your doctrine. Maybe you should consider taking this level as Fighter instead of cleric." The second conversation like that isn't phrased as a suggestion.

As always, it just goes to show that social contract is king. A DM that told a player he couldn't pick his next class level would be laughed at in my game group.

And I'm curious about the "never go into a dungeon raid". Do you enforce class balance at the table by leaving out certain characters from certain adventures? Are they allowed to use backup characters, or do they just not play that night?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Since this is an "ALL D&D" Thread, it should be pointed out that this issue is a pre 4e issue (I guess potentially also 5e issue).

I played a 4e fighter from Day One (8am at Gen Con) onward, and never did I feel anyone owned a battlefield more than the fighter. Others did more damage (especially single target; I specialized in groups), and caused more condition effects, but playing a sword and board 4e fighter just felt *right*.

In typical fights I would grab a squishy ally who was being attacked, throw them behind me and lock down the opponent. Or walk in the middle of the room and attack 2-3 enemies, forcing them to engage me. Every round they stood beside me I'd nick them for a little damage, and if they tried to get away, either it would take their whole action, or I'd knock them to the ground with my shield. I had among the best physical defenses (AC, reflex and fortitude) almost always. I never needed buffs (although always appreciated) and was always able to contribute.

I finished up a 3.5 game a while ago, and played a wizard. I voluntarily gave up a ton of spells so I would not outclass the fighter (unless the opponent has DR, why wouldn't you polymorph yourself and your familiar into N headed hydras and get 2N attacks/round?) and me and cleric buffed our fighter a lot. When we did so, he was a death machine of awesomeness. Enlarged, Heroic, Speed, etc. I could DD him right up to the enemy so he could get his full sequence (fighters only do meaningful damage at mid-high levels when they get their iteratives), and he could usually one-shot the opponent. If not, the cleric would save his life when the enemy got its full sequence and then he'd definitely finish it off.

Fun and all, but the fighter definitely felt like a pet or a minion once we hit level 8 or so. Not a fighter.

So my advice would be: Play 4e or quit at level 9 if you want to feel like a fighter. Or possibly play with splat-books with good fighter material and bad caster material. I haven't experienced that so have no idea if it works. Or possibly 5e,; again -- no experience.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

My above post looks a bit edition-warry. It was not intended to be so. Just my experiences; I had a lot of fun with fighters in 4e, playing several, which I never had in 3.5. As many people have pointed out, they have different experiences; play-style and group make a lot of difference, so consider all reports in the light of the question "is my group more like poster A's or poster B's?"

I did have a ton of fun running a low-level 3.5 game which was all-wizards: "Hogwarts meets Lost" is the capsule summary; everyone played a level one teen-age wizard at school, when it accidentally translated into the middle of nowhere, with the players the only ones also being translated. Mission: survive.

It was an interesting and fun experience. I learned that an orc wizard with a staff can be pretty effective at hitting things; that 10 magic missiles pretty much destroy any first level encounter and that wizards can be good at combat and negotiation, but are really, really bad at foraging for food and cooking it.

 

[Mercule]

And I'm curious about the "never go into a dungeon raid". Do you enforce class balance at the table by leaving out certain characters from certain adventures? Are they allowed to use backup characters, or do they just not play that night?

I guess I'd have to ask why the PCs would choose to follow a lead that excluded one of them. As a DM, it's my job to create interesting adventures and plot hooks that apply to their characters.

I have preferences and certain boundaries about what I'll run (just like my players won't play Aces & Eights, no matter how much I beg), but even my campaign setting evolves based on the characters played in it. The historic personalities and "name brands" are mostly previous PCs, rather than some designer's Mary Sue. Enduring nations and orders are founded by PCs, they fell ancient empires, and permanently change the map. That's the trade-off for actually having to have a personality and bring it to life.

As you say, the social contract is king. I put a lot of effort into the story, when I DM, so I expect and attract players that also do so. That said, there are times we the group wants to kick back and have a low-stress game of stabbing orcs in the face and that uses a different social contract.

For "beer & pretzels" mode, I'll grab a module and use a published setting (either Greyhawk or Eberron, most likely) and no one will make too big a deal about little things ("Hey, wasn't the blacksmith's name 'Jim' last week? Why is it 'Greg', today?"). In that case, the expectation is that the players will make characters that don't feel out of place, but they can retcon some history in. Also, we're playing casual, so anyone who put too much effort into maxing out their character would be out of place.

Thankfully, I've never been part of a group whose primary joy was in optimizing their numbers to the point they couldn't turn it off. Sure, everyone likes a character who's competent at their intended role, but that's not the same thing. I don't understand that mentality. If the whole group is doing it, then whatever floats their boat; they just have different criteria for what's "deep" or "casual" than I do. If their group has players who don't want to do heavy math, or who aren't good at it, then there are probably some issues there.

 

[ImperatorK]

I choose the class that best fits my concept, both in a fluff and mechanical way.

 

[Bluenose]

I have a character concept. If the Fighter class is the best way to reconcile the character with the mechanics, then I'll play a character with Fighter levels. If another class fits the concept better, I'll play that class. I am not concerned with the little icon over my character's head which tells everyone they're a Fighter instead of a Whatever; I am concerned, under the principle of Show Not Tell, with a character that can do what my mental image says they should do.