Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Kill the fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5862870" data-attributes="member: 32536"><p>The problem with this solution is that you have to ask "What does a Fighter <em>do</em>?" and provide a better answer than "He fights." That answer only works in the most abstract and useless manner. How does he fight? What does the class do from round to round in battle other than "I attack," which is about as boring as it gets. There really are not that many ways to make such a class work.</p><p></p><p>If you forget the Fighter and instead focus on more focused concepts, escaping the "I attack" problem becomes a lot easier. A guardian knight can get powerful mechanics for protecting allies. A skilled fencer can get abilities for focusing against a single foe. A crazed berserker can get rage mechanics. A dragonslayer can gain resistance to elemental attacks and abilities to keep a dragon trapped on the ground. A cavalier can improve his skill at mounted combat. These are all extremely iconic kinds of things for a "fighter" to do, but a generalized Fighter class is always going to be very poor at giving proper mechanical support for any of these concepts. Well, I suppose it could, but the resulting class would be incredibly bloated and over-complicated.</p><p></p><p>Generalized classes like the traditional Fighter or Wizard can only end up one of two ways: overpowered and overcomplicated classes designed to cover every possible iteration of the concept with unique mechanics, or overly simplistic and underpowered classes that fail to capture any of the archetypes that they are supposed to represent. In older editions, Wizards were the former and Fighters were the latter. The choices to make them both so generalized and implement that generalization in opposing ways is the root of why they have been so imbalanced in the past. I'd prefer to see both classes get broken down into their component archetypes rather than see this problem continue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5862870, member: 32536"] The problem with this solution is that you have to ask "What does a Fighter [i]do[/i]?" and provide a better answer than "He fights." That answer only works in the most abstract and useless manner. How does he fight? What does the class do from round to round in battle other than "I attack," which is about as boring as it gets. There really are not that many ways to make such a class work. If you forget the Fighter and instead focus on more focused concepts, escaping the "I attack" problem becomes a lot easier. A guardian knight can get powerful mechanics for protecting allies. A skilled fencer can get abilities for focusing against a single foe. A crazed berserker can get rage mechanics. A dragonslayer can gain resistance to elemental attacks and abilities to keep a dragon trapped on the ground. A cavalier can improve his skill at mounted combat. These are all extremely iconic kinds of things for a "fighter" to do, but a generalized Fighter class is always going to be very poor at giving proper mechanical support for any of these concepts. Well, I suppose it could, but the resulting class would be incredibly bloated and over-complicated. Generalized classes like the traditional Fighter or Wizard can only end up one of two ways: overpowered and overcomplicated classes designed to cover every possible iteration of the concept with unique mechanics, or overly simplistic and underpowered classes that fail to capture any of the archetypes that they are supposed to represent. In older editions, Wizards were the former and Fighters were the latter. The choices to make them both so generalized and implement that generalization in opposing ways is the root of why they have been so imbalanced in the past. I'd prefer to see both classes get broken down into their component archetypes rather than see this problem continue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Kill the fighter
Top