Kill the fighter

[mkill]

"Fighter most popular" is not a universal truth. Let's check iPlay4E, which is representative of the 4E PbE/online community...

Fighter 122
Wizard 123
Rogue 88
Cleric 125
Swordmage 146 (!)
Battlemind 137
Warlord 136
Avenger 125
Barbarian 139

mmh...

 

[ArmoredSaint]

The fighter doesn't need to be removed. It needs to be protected.

Whatever we decide to make the fighter good at, it must be the BEST at and make it viable in all combats (as it is a combat class).

If fighters are the Damage class, give it the highest damage and make damage dealing a good option.
If fighters are the Weapon Accuracy class, give it the highest accuracy and weapon attacks a strong choice.
If fighters are the Armor Class class, give it the highest AC and make AC tanks viable at all levels.
If fighters are the Hit Point class, give it the highest HP and make HP tanks viable at all levels.

I like what this guy said. Designers, make it so!

 

[johnsemlak]

What is a fighter that is just a warrior? And how do we make him an unique type of adventurer?

By roleplaying him.

 

[johnsemlak]

It would be cool if there was a reliable statistically sound method of determining what classes are the most popular. My anectotal feeling is that the fighter is the most popular but I might be wrong. Certainly in the 3a era the fighter became far more interesting with all the powers available.

The version of D&D that did in fact ditch the fighter class was Arcana Unearthed. Not sure how that worked out overall.

 

[johnsemlak]

No, by third I mean third. The question is not about a race and class combination, but about a class.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Alert alert alert. An EN World messageboard user is using a poll posted at EN Wold as evidence of something significant. Warning, warning

 

[mcintma]

The problem is that even if the fighter is all of these he's still the most useless class in the game because he can't DO anything besides hit stuff with a hunk of metal. He can't move obstacles out of the way, he can't talk his way around a fancy dress party, he can't stop a demon from carrying a princess back through a hellish portal.

D&D was designed for a party of adventurers of various skill-sets, not a solo superhero. Just like the Wiz is glad to have the burly Ftr so he can cower feebly behind him 90% of the time, there must come a time where the Ftr must look to his Wiz companion to close the hellish portal, or his skinny rogue friend to schmooze the nobles.

 

[n00bdragon]

By roleplaying him.

So every other class in the game has special abilities that let them do cool things just by declaring it so but the fighter must use roleplay to be anything more than a somewhat mediocre summon? Are you implying other classes can't use roleplay to the exact same extent to do the exact same things except more because they also have game-system provided powers?

The real problem is the assumption it's a good thing for the DM to fix the system's balance problem. This is a strange belief held by a vast number of D&D players because it's been required by the game since the game's inception. No other roleplaying game has such a bizarre player base not just accustomed to but actively preferring such insanity.

The assumption goes that characters with "effect buttons" simply declare that something is now happening. Whether that be them turning invisible or clonking a guy on the head so hard he drops his guard and wets himself the fact of the matter is the player (not the DM) can simply declare "this happens". Characters without "effect buttons" must consult the DM for every action they take which is beyond the scope of the rules as written and the DM is obliged to invent rules on the spot. Whether that rule is "no" or "make 9000 strength checks" depends on the DM but for those characters it is the DM who determines the scope of their abilities on the fly rather than the player's character sheet.

Continuing the assumption is that characters who have effect buttons will not generally ask the DM to invent new rules for their actions. They will rely entirely on their effect buttons. Likewise it is assumed that characters without effect buttons should always have a reasonable chance to do various things with the rules invented on the fly by the DM even though this "power" is explained nowhere in the rules of any edition of D&D. The unwritten rules are thusly and players who deviate from this, whether it's effect button users who regularly petition the DM for on the fly powers or non-effect button users who either fail to make use of the DM or the DM regularly shuts them down, are playing the game incorrectly.

I think that's where the backlash against 4E comes. D&D players expect the fighter to be asking the DM if he can do a cool thing every now and then and the fact that he now has effect buttons makes him more like a wizard. When the fighter is relying on his effect buttons to do things rather than petitioning the DM players used to the old order feel that he is breaking those unwritten "rules".

This is, of course, completely absurd. Games should not have unwritten rules much less expect players (particularly new ones) to abide by them. If this "shadow rule" that does not appear in any D&D book for any edition ever is the core of "The Uniquely D&D Experience" as some people call it then I want nothing to do with it.

 

[El Mahdi]

So, should we go back to a generic "magic-user" class and make warlocks, sorcerers, illusionists, necromancers, maybe clerics, all part of that?

I'd be cool with that.

Generic Arcane Magic User with rules for making more specialized versions.
Generic Divine Magic User with rules for making more specialized versions.
Generic Rogue with rules for making more specialized versions.

Sounds Good.

Or, why distinguish fighters from magic-users in this inherently magical world? Why not make one "adventurer" class that can, through options, model many different archetypes, from gishes to knights to scholar-wizards to illusionst-rogues?

I think I'd like a system like that...but I don't think it would feel like D&D anymore.

As a DM though, I'd probably nix any character concepts that a player couldn't provide a believable backstory that explains their chosen combination of options. I'd rule out characters with combinations based solely on min-maxing...or just maxing.

I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer per se, but I do think it's a question of how class-based you want to be. One generic "fighter" as its own class can imply a whole lot of classes that should probably be more generic than they are as of 3e/4e (which, you could argue, is part of why 3e and 4e have class bloat: classes are generally not as generic).

You could maybe try a middle ground. Start really generic and broad, and just have "packages" that come pre-made as classes, with people who want to dig into the detail a bit able to customize. That might be really hard to pull off in a balanced way, though.

I'd like a package structure. I don't think it would be too hard to balance though. It sounds like Monte and Company are less concerned this time around with all classes being perfectly balanced. It sounds like they're going on the idea that as long as all classes are able to do something useful in any situation, and are better than anybody else at their niche, then perfect balance is less of a concern.

I'll have to see how it works in practice though. I agree with them to an extent, but I think balance needs to be at least of some concern. I think an extreme lack of balance between classes would still be a problem, but perfect balance probably isn't necessary.

But, as long as DM's have a good understanding of relative mechanical power levels, or the DMG provides them good guidance on it, I think DM's can be the final check on balance for their games.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The version of D&D that did in fact ditch the fighter class was Arcana Unearthed. Not sure how that worked out overall.

It may not have had something called "Fighter," but the Warmain was so very, very much the Fighter. It replaces some of the bonus feats with fixed class features and iirc had a d12 HD, but otherwise the same exact class. Right down to getting Weapon Specialization.

 

[johnsemlak]

So every other class in the game has special abilities that let them do cool things just by declaring it so but the fighter must use roleplay to be anything more than a somewhat mediocre summon? Are you implying other classes can't use roleplay to the exact same extent to do the exact same things except more because they also have game-system provided powers?

.

I was responding that to the question ' And how do we make him an unique type of adventurer?'

I've never had a problem making a fighter character of any edition (including Basic/Expert where the fighter only improved by getting better hit rolls and hit points) unique by role playing and writing up an interesting background. That should be part of any character, whether the abilities of said character are complex or not.

I can understand that some players demand that they have mechanical abilities. But ultimately the defining characteristics of the fighter archetype are strength and the ability the bash things, and these abilities are all you really nead.