Lets define Today's Fighter

[Meatboy]

This has been bugging me for several days now. I've been thinking about the fighter and what it is that makes them unique. It seems that traditionally, so in 1e and what not, Fighters were the best at fighting. If monsters showed up it was their job to make them go away. To this end they got access to the best equipment, in terms of weapons, armor and potions, and they have the highest saves and HP. When everyone else was dead or had run away fighters were still in the thick of it. This seemed doable because of the division of power that earlier RPGs had. Fighters fought, Thieves sneaked, mages cast spells and everything had its place. Now with the idea of all inclusiveness, meaning in any situation any class can do something, but not nessicarily the same thing, fighters get edged out of "fighting" in general becuase everyone has to be at least compitent at fighting.

Thematically fighters covered a broad range of archetypes Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur were all Fighting Men in the begining (today they all get classes modeled after them). It seems that there are so many classes that step on the fighter's toes. Even classes that used to be seen as secondary combatants, notably the rogue and cleric, have the ability to outstrip the fighter in terms of damage out put and defense/survivability.

This leads me to the question what is the fighter today then? If it isn't the best combatant or the class that covers a derth of literary heroes what is it?

 

[Yora]

Simple solution is to put all the rogues and mages back into their place where they belong.
though this requires a style of playing, in which not everything revolves around combat.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This has been bugging me for several days now. I've been thinking about the fighter and what it is that makes them unique. It seems that traditionally, so in 1e and what not, Fighters were the best at fighting. If monsters showed up it was their job to make them go away. To this end they got access to the best equipment, in terms of weapons, armor and potions, and they have the highest saves and HP. When everyone else was dead or had run away fighters were still in the thick of it. This seemed doable because of the division of power that earlier RPGs had. Fighters fought, Thieves sneaked, mages cast spells and everything had its place. Now with the idea of all inclusiveness, meaning in any situation any class can do something, but not nessicarily the same thing, fighters get edged out of "fighting" in general becuase everyone has to be at least compitent at fighting.

Thematically fighters covered a broad range of archetypes Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur were all Fighting Men in the begining (today they all get classes modeled after them).

Unfortunately, many of those fighters weren't part of adventuring parties. Even in D&D fiction, the PCs rarely function as adventurers. There's usually one or two main characters, and the rest (especially magic-users and healers) are just "hangers-on". (The opposite occurs when the main character is a caster. That's why Elminster is such as munchkin in print; he can't be squishy or ever prepare the wrong spells, as his only backup is ... Mystra.)

This gets worse with even older fiction. How many of those Ancient Greek heroes were A) not fighters and B) not demigods?

And I will pronounce a deep sigh for attempting to make classes that replicate specific characters, fighters or not. That ruined a bunch of classes like the ranger.

It seems that there are so many classes that step on the fighter's toes. Even classes that used to be seen as secondary combatants, notably the rogue and cleric, have the ability to outstrip the fighter in terms of damage out put and defense/survivability.

This leads me to the question what is the fighter today then? If it isn't the best combatant or the class that covers a derth of literary heroes what is it?

The old games didn't necessarily promote teamwork. I don't mean in terms of how you played (thieves scouted, for instance), but the rules didn't promote teamwork. 3.x was the first edition I saw with rules for things like flanking. I don't believe aid another existed before that either. You ended up with a situation where the rogue could "backstab" far more often than before... but he needed help doing so.

As a result, the whole party had to be able to take part in combat, which is generally the most time-consuming part of the game.

Many classes, including the fighter, were given too many roles early on. It was worse with spellcasters, but it generally affected every class except the rogue.

Fighters were supposed to do the most damage, have the most hit points, have the best AC and in short do everything that didn't involve magic.

Wizards have such a wide variety of spells - anything from nearly unstoppable defenses to DM-dependent illusions, massive damage spells and a variety of insta-debuff/kill spells...

Clerics were only in the game to heal and "off-tank". Naturally they were given spells that didn't fulfill any of those roles. 3.x only made things worse by giving them the ability to buff-n-bash. (I like how most 4e cleric powers have a built in one-turn buff. Really puts the "lead" in leader. Even if you hate healing, clerics can still be fun to play.)

Thieves had the most limited role pre 3.x. You could use a few skills (which helped the whole party but not that much in combat) -- unclear stealth rules made things worse, find and disarm traps and, if you were lucky, once combat started you could backstab once. Unsurprisingly WotC gave rogues a new combat role in 3.x, so they could be useful once the fighting started. (Unfortunately, due to clumsiness in Stealth rules, it's not really possible to make a rogue who hides well in combat without magic or a prestige class in 3.x.) Of course, this resulted in a rogue who could out-damage a fighter, seeming to stray into fighter territory.

Finally 4e made roles concrete. As a direct result, some classes that hadn't been covered well previously (bard, cleric, monk) made sense.

Alas, the fighter had too many roles before and had to lose something. In Essentials the fighter was split into two classes, "slayer" and "knight".

The slayer is a big bad dude who is fairly tough and does loads of damage. He's simpler to use than the rogue. Thematically he's quite different, but having a rogue and slayer in the party usually isn't necessary.

The knight is a real tough guy who protects other PCs. In addition to his "marking aura" (his Defender Aura) he can punish anyone foolish enough to attack someone under his protection. He has abilities like Threatening Glower to draw attention and Staggering Hammer to contain opponents.

I don't think it's really a good idea to have an old fighter who can do both things anymore. To be blunt, until 4e the fighter never could do the second role except through "gentleman's arrangement". This crops up time and time again in the D&DN playtest; the fighter and guardian cleric have very limited abilities to protect other PCs, but people only complain about it now since we've gone through twelve years of gaming where fighters could do something other than dish out damage. Opponents can just walk around them (no opportunity attacks) and gank a softer target. If you're looking for an old-style fighter, the slayer is probably your best bet, in 4e at least.

 

[Derren]

Imo the problem is that in 4E WotC switched to the Tank-DD-Healer trinity (or the older Tank-Healer-DD-CC system) from MMOs.

While previously "Fighter" pretty much encompassed all fighting men it now became primarily a tank who was not there to deal damage but to absorb it and "keep aggro".

This is a rather gamist concept ans does in no way represent what real fighters would try to do). WotC should revert back to the 3E version of the fighter where he is the master with weapons.

 

[Stormonu]

The old games didn't necessarily promote teamwork. I don't mean in terms of how you played (thieves scouted, for instance), but the rules didn't promote teamwork. 3.x was the first edition I saw with rules for things like flanking. I don't believe aid another existed before that either. You ended up with a situation where the rogue could "backstab" far more often than before... but he needed help doing so.

I quite disagree. Older editions certainly promoted teamwork; "Don't split the party" has been a rule of D&D long before 3E/4E. It may not have been as overt as in later editions, but the party whose fighter's didn't block for the wizard, whose cleric didn't pack a lot of healing spells and whose rogue didn't scour the dungeon for traps had a very short life expectancy.

Flanking was nothing more than a simplification of the facing rules from 1E - front, shield side, non-shield side, rear.

Thieves had the most limited role pre 3.x. You could use a few skills (which helped the whole party but not that much in combat) -- unclear stealth rules made things worse, find and disarm traps and, if you were lucky, once combat started you could backstab once. Unsurprisingly WotC gave rogues a new combat role in 3.x, so they could be useful once the fighting started. (Unfortunately, due to clumsiness in Stealth rules, it's not really possible to make a rogue who hides well in combat without magic or a prestige class in 3.x.) Of course, this resulted in a rogue who could out-damage a fighter, seeming to stray into fighter territory.

In early 3E and previous editions, the rogue's role wasn't in combat. It was in avoiding trouble - sneaking past opponents* (instead of fighting them), locate/dismantle obstacles (find/remove traps) and take out foes to avoid engagements (backstab) or soften up the opposition before true combat began. If the rogue got into combat, it generally wasn't by choice and he needed to have heavy back-up from the fighter (or cleric) or should run. This changed in late 3E and 4E with the idea of a "striker" role.

* This was why there wasn't emphasis placed on in-combat stealth. Stealth was used to avert or pr-empt combat, not aid in it.

I think most of your assessment about the fighter is spot on. When the game was simpler, so was the fighter's role. But now, there's at least two, perhaps three directions to take the fighter. However, I still think the fighter can cover the varied roles, he just needs a suite of abilities that give him a strong showing in the role he chooses.

 

[Meatboy]

Alas, the fighter had too many roles before and had to lose something. In Essentials the fighter was split into two classes, "slayer" and "knight".

The slayer is a big bad dude who is fairly tough and does loads of damage. He's simpler to use than the rogue. Thematically he's quite different, but having a rogue and slayer in the party usually isn't necessary.

The knight is a real tough guy who protects other PCs. In addition to his "marking aura" (his Defender Aura) he can punish anyone foolish enough to attack someone under his protection. He has abilities like Threatening Glower to draw attention and Staggering Hammer to contain opponents.

I don't think it's really a good idea to have an old fighter who can do both things anymore. To be blunt, until 4e the fighter never could do the second role except through "gentleman's arrangement". This crops up time and time again in the D&DN playtest; the fighter and guardian cleric have very limited abilities to protect other PCs, but people only complain about it now since we've gone through twelve years of gaming where fighters could do something other than dish out damage. Opponents can just walk around them (no opportunity attacks) and gank a softer target. If you're looking for an old-style fighter, the slayer is probably your best bet, in 4e at least.

I dunno I think a fighter can take up different roles but it requires feats or abilities that back it up. I feel that unfortunately they've gone away from making this happen by 1. Making too many classes. and 2. Having to ensure 20 level progressions.

We already touched on excessive classes earlier so I'll leave that and focus on level progession. To me the standard way DnD deals with progression is what is holding the fighter back. In the earliest editions the fighter got attack bonuses, hp and saves and little else. Later on were feats but by and large feats were underwhelming and certainly weren't as interesting as the abilities afforded to other classes. The latest itteration has tons of nifty abilities except that it seems that as you gain levels you don't gain "new" powers you replace an older power that has bigger numbers and maybe a new rider ability tacked onto it.

I think you can get around this issue by giving fighters something like feats and abilities together. That is a large pool of varying abilities that only the fighter can pick that can help define ones own vision of the fighter. Make them little skill trees so that you can specialize but not so mundane as things like +1 attack with longswords.

 

[Meatboy]

In early 3E and previous editions, the rogue's role wasn't in combat. It was in avoiding trouble - sneaking past opponents* (instead of fighting them), locate/dismantle obstacles (find/remove traps) and take out foes to avoid engagements (backstab) or soften up the opposition before true combat began. If the rogue got into combat, it generally wasn't by choice and he needed to have heavy back-up from the fighter (or cleric) or should run. This changed in late 3E and 4E with the idea of a "striker" role.

* This was why there wasn't emphasis placed on in-combat stealth. Stealth was used to avert or pr-empt combat, not aid in it.

I think most of your assessment about the fighter is spot on. When the game was simpler, so was the fighter's role. But now, there's at least two, perhaps three directions to take the fighter. However, I still think the fighter can cover the varied roles, he just needs a suite of abilities that give him a strong showing in the role he chooses.

Agreed. I am all for fighters, and all classes, to have suites that help them achieve their role and to fit players visions.

I wonder if it might not be advisable for designers to turn back the clock a bit and draw harder lines between the classes again. If we know what it is a fighter needs to do then perhaps we can start assigning them abilities that will help with this.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I quite disagree. Older editions certainly promoted teamwork; "Don't split the party" has been a rule of D&D long before 3E/4E. It may not have been as overt as in later editions, but the party whose fighter's didn't block for the wizard, whose cleric didn't pack a lot of healing spells and whose rogue didn't scour the dungeon for traps had a very short life expectancy.

I disagree, at least in combat. Fighters were supposed to block the pathway to the squishies, but they had no ability to do so (other than the obvious, blocking a 5 foot wide passageway).

Thieves could sneak, but that only helped them, not the rest of the party.

Flanking was nothing more than a simplification of the facing rules from 1E - front, shield side, non-shield side, rear.

In 3.x, flanking was key to getting sneak attack. The rogue could get sneak attack anytime they could coordinate with a friend. (Of course, there was also stealth, invisibility, etc, but the best way was teamwork.)

In early 3E and previous editions, the rogue's role wasn't in combat. It was in avoiding trouble - sneaking past opponents* (instead of fighting them), locate/dismantle obstacles (find/remove traps) and take out foes to avoid engagements (backstab) or soften up the opposition before true combat began. If the rogue got into combat, it generally wasn't by choice and he needed to have heavy back-up from the fighter (or cleric) or should run. This changed in late 3E and 4E with the idea of a "striker" role.

* This was why there wasn't emphasis placed on in-combat stealth. Stealth was used to avert or pr-empt combat, not aid in it.

I agree with this, but I think it contributed to the mentality of thieves being "weak". Wizards could contribute in combat, so could fighters, and even to extent clerics (in an undefined way) but thieves were left in the cold. Backstab once and that was it.

I dunno I think a fighter can take up different roles but it requires feats or abilities that back it up. I feel that unfortunately they've gone away from making this happen by 1. Making too many classes. and 2. Having to ensure 20 level progressions.

We already touched on excessive classes earlier so I'll leave that and focus on level progession. To me the standard way DnD deals with progression is what is holding the fighter back. In the earliest editions the fighter got attack bonuses, hp and saves and little else. Later on were feats but by and large feats were underwhelming and certainly weren't as interesting as the abilities afforded to other classes.

Tell me about it. I don't know why WotC in 3.x didn't figure this out until they hired Mike Mearls. (Unfortunately, it was too late for 3.x; by the time Tome of Battle came out, the fighter class was set in stone. It's too bad there wasn't something like that available in 3.5's core. Fortunately they got him to work on the fighter in 4e, although this left some non-fighter fans cold.)

The latest itteration has tons of nifty abilities except that it seems that as you gain levels you don't gain "new" powers you replace an older power that has bigger numbers and maybe a new rider ability tacked onto it.

I think you can get around this issue by giving fighters something like feats and abilities together. That is a large pool of varying abilities that only the fighter can pick that can help define ones own vision of the fighter. Make them little skill trees so that you can specialize but not so mundane as things like +1 attack with longswords.

I think you might be mixing feats and powers a little there; feats tend to give those flat numerical bonuses (which I hated so much in 3.5; it doesn't matter if fighters got Greater Weapon Spec and can get +4 damage rather than +2; the feat wasn't really fixing their problems). Although I have to say the weaponmaster feat that lets you use at-wills rather than melee basic attacks for either opportunity attacks or counterattacks is pretty awesome and isn't just some flat numerical bonus; it doesn't seem like a popular feat for some reason but no doubt informed the design of the knight.

4e fighters (the defenders, I'm thinking of) actually have these abilities that work together. The weaponmaster is actually pretty deep, so deep it's no longer a "beginner" class. The weaponmaster player in my group wanted to play one "because it was simplest". (All roles were already filled when he joined.) I wonder if he was being sarcastic; he knows exactly how Combat Challenge works, how opportunity attacks work differently, and regularly (ab?)uses powers such as Come and Get It (he's 8th-level) to really put the stickiness and hurt on the bad guys. I think the weaponmaster might just be boring "on paper".

The knight's a bit less spectacular, but I think being able to hit an opponent with a counterattack (eg when they try to shift by them) and then use Power Strike with Staggering Hammer to immobilize them as they try to get at the squishy to be pretty awesome. "No buddy, I'm your opponent."

 

[Stormonu]

I disagree, at least in combat. Fighters were supposed to block the pathway to the squishies, but they had no ability to do so (other than the obvious, blocking a 5 foot wide passageway).

Fighter could also "block" opponents in older editions by engaging them in melee. So long as the wizard kept a small distance from the fighters, by older rule breaking from an attacker let them get free attacks.

Breaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and
flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or
attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a
stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing
party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent
pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended
and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

Retreat
To get out of a combat, characters can make a careful withdrawal
or they can simply flee.
Withdrawing: When making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away
from his opponent (who can chow to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normal movement rate.
If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw, the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for getting a seriously injured man out of a combat.
Fleeing: To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defemes and turns his back to his opponent. The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: It doesn't count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant.
The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy.

Threatened
Any square that a creature can reach with its weapon or claws also threatens those squares and therefore any characters or creatures standing in one of the threatened squares. The character's own facing doesn't matter-it's possible to be threatened by someone
standing behind you.
Threatened characters can choose to ignore the creature threatening them and take any combat action they wish, but if they do, the threatening creature gains an immediate attack of opportunity. The following actions create an attack of opportunity for the threatening creature:
* Attempting missile combat (other than at the threatening creature, and only in the combat round when it first threatens the character).
- includes move, charge, and run, but not withdraw. Turning so that the threatening creature is now in a rear square.
* Attempting an unarmed attack against any foe except an unarmed human-like creature.
Monsters and characters threaten all eligible squares throughout the entire round. If a character tries to sprint through the threatened squares to get by the defender, the defender gets an attack of opportunity as the character runs by. If the creature being attacked suffers from a successful knockdown roll or if a critical hit from the attack of opportunity is suffered, then it must stop moving. Otherwise, it may run by the creature threatening it.

It was certainly harder to contain opponents in the older editions, but it was possible. Newer editions added rules and abilities that certainly made it easier, but there were still tactics and actions characters could take in older games to get similar results - and it certainly helped if the DM would "play along" and give some agency to these tactics. I'm not against newer methods like Threatened squares and Marking, but it's untrue you couldn't do this sort of stuff in old editions - my players did it quite frequently.

 

[Stormonu]

Agreed. I am all for fighters, and all classes, to have suites that help them achieve their role and to fit players visions.

I wonder if it might not be advisable for designers to turn back the clock a bit and draw harder lines between the classes again. If we know what it is a fighter needs to do then perhaps we can start assigning them abilities that will help with this.

I feel there's a very narrow tightrope when dealing with this. I like 3E's "you can be anything", but I felt they stripped the fighter and gave "his" abilities to everyone (namely in the multiple attacks a round, among other problems). I did not like the siloing of 4E, especially with the tone of "this is how you will play a fighter." If there are to be roles, I like to have a freer hand and that role not necessarily be confined by class* (i.e., you shouldn't HAVE to play a Ranger to be striker-like fighter.)

* Yes, later books opened this up somewhat, but 4E core was quite deadset in who was what.