Specialist Fighters

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As I've said before 'round these here parts, I like both the generalist fighter who is competent in all weapons and the specialist with a narrow range or even single weapon.

I could see specialists have benefits similar to the weapon style feats of 3.5Ed, boosting weapon die size or crit damage, etc.

Generalists, however, are a bit harder to throw a nechanical bone given the way so many people play fighters. What do you give the guy who uses everything?

I like the idea of different weapons having different effects and allowing different maneuvers or tactics. I don't think it neccessarily requires the Fighter to become a specialist in one weapon. MAybe it would in fact be better if the Fighter stays a generalist that can use every weapon well, and only non-Fighter weapon-using classes get to specialize - and that means they get a subset of the Fighter's ability only for their chosen weapon. (The Fighter may also get some other "general" fighting ability to set him apart.)

So, if you're a Rogue, you can get weapon maneuvers with rogue weapons. As a Fighter, you got weapon maneuvers with all weapons.

Ultimately, why is the Fighter called Fighter? Because that'S what he is, someone that fights. He shouldn't feel slowed down just because his favorite sword got broken, he should just use the remaining pieces to cut off someone's arm and club the remaining enemies to death. He should mourn the loss of his favorite implement of death because of the emotional attachment, not because he can't use his 8 feats anymore until he gets another weapon of that type.

 

[CleverNickName]

This sounds just like the 4e fighter by the way--I thought I had you guys pegged.

Pegged for what?

I wouldn't know about it being "just like the 4E fighter," though. It's actually a mash-up of some of the elements from the Tome of Battle, the sorcerer bloodlines from Pathfinder, and the cleric domains from the 3.5 SRD. If this is the way that Fighters work in 4E, maybe I'd like them.

But this is just one way that the game designers could customize the Fighter class. Fighter-only feats are another, and the myriad variety of at-will, daily, and encounter powers would also work. I'm not sure what the designers will end up with, honestly, but this is more along the lines of what I would like to see.

I would like to see a fighter's choice of weapon and armor actually matter.

 

[CM]

I hear what some people are saying about making generalist fighters more appealing. I guess the best of both worlds would be for a fighter to be able to "swap out" maneuver packages as easily as changing weapons or armor. Something like (dare I say it?) World of Warcraft's warrior stances. That way your weapon choice helps define your fighting style, but doesn't lock you into it forever.

Perhaps a fighter could start with 2-3 styles and pick up a new one every few levels. Sword & Board, 2-hand, dual-wield, archery, free hand, off-hand thrown, unarmed, and staff fighting all come to mind.

Then there's also the weapon-specific groups that could also add a suite of abilities (light blade, heavy blade, axes, flails, bows, etc).

 

[TwinBahamut]

I wouldn't be against a revival of BECMI-style weapon skill levels, but I don't like the idea of making the fighter unique through weapon specialization, for a number of different reasons.

Reason 1: The fighter is supposed to be the character who can use every weapon, but is also supposed to specialize in a single weapon. This is a flat contradiction in the very concept of the class. If the fighter's versatility of equipment is supposed to be an advantage, then forcing specialization in a single weapon type removes that advantage. If specialization is a fighter class feature, then the fighter will have less practical versatility than any other weapon-using class.

Reason 2: Specialization is not terribly fun in of itself. No one likes to play a one-trick character. If different weapons are supposed to represent different tactical options, it is more fun and effective for the fighter to be able to choose between those tactical options and make use of the one appropriate for the situation.

Reason 3: Weapon choice should matter for classes other than the fighter. If great skill with weapons gives interesting tactical choices, then it should be a meaningful choice for Paladins, Warlords, Rogues, Rangers, and Barbarians. If weapon specialization is a fighter-specific ability, then it deprives these other classes of that ability.

Overall, rather than weapon specialization being fighter-specific, I'd prefer to see the fighter get something unique and powerful in its own right, so that all weapon-users could make use of weapon specialization. What's more, rather than weapon specialization, I'd like to see weapon skill, so that fighters can be skilled in many different (or even all) weapons, and less-skilled weapon-users can be the ones to specialize in one or two weapon types.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think this is a fine idea. It gives the fighter great versatility and allows the player to play their fighter their way.

Though I do see it certainly stepping into the realm of other martial classes such as rogues and rangers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No one likes to play a one-trick character.

Speak for yourself, please.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wouldn't be against a revival of BECMI-style weapon skill levels, but I don't like the idea of making the fighter unique through weapon specialization, for a number of different reasons.

You have some interesting points.

1: I think there should be a difference between "being able to use" a weapon and "becoming a specialist with" a weapon. Specializing in polearms doesn't prohibit a fighter from using a sword; it just means he has different (and better) abilities when using, say, a halberd. It would be silly to assume a crossbow specialist couldn't be able to defend himself at close range. The fighter must always be versatile with his weapon catalog.

2: I do understand that point. But again, the assumption is that a fighter who specializes in a particular style of weapon would become inept at all others...a "one-trick pony." That is not at all what I would like to see.

3: Agreed, and this is where I think weapon-specific feats could really shine. A feat that lets a character fight with a spear as a double weapon, for example, would be great for fighters and druids alike. But like the Ranger's favored enemy ability or the Rogue's sneak attack, some things can only be done by certain classes...and I think that a Dagger Specialist would know a thing or two that even a skilled assassin doesn't (and vice-versa).

 

[BobTheNob]

Speak for yourself, please.

Ok then.

I dont like playing one-trick ponies.

By your response, are you saying you do? Or are you playing devils advocate for those who may?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Speak for yourself, please.

I didn't realize you were quoting me at first...

I'll stand by that comment. I'll admit "no one" is a little bit of hyperbole, but not to any unreasonable degree. I sincerely doubt people find doing the exact same thing over and over again against every foe to be all that enjoyable compared to the alternative, after all.

But, as BobTheNob said... Do you enjoy playing one-trick characters? Do you think that should be the design goal? Do you think a sufficiently large number of people who play D&D want to play a one-trick character to make a class dedicated to the idea? I don't.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

By your response, are you saying you do? Or are you playing devils advocate for those who may?

I've been in the hobby for 30+ years- I've played generalist wizards who can do it all, jacks of all trades who master none, and PCs who have one good trick and "Spam infinitum!" And in different RPG systems as well...

I've found playing each kind of PC delivers its own kind of fun.

In a combat running a one trick pony, I know 95% of the time what my next action will be. This makes the PC effortless to play in combat. The rest of the time, I do things nobody expects. And because I'm not sifting through two dozen options, I have a lot of time to think about doing the unexpected in character.

OTPs also present the challenge of overcoming a foe (or other campaign obstscle) when your one trick is no good.

While, strictly speaking, not a OTP, Adragon Van Basten (the last 3.5Ed PC I got to run- campaign on hiatus) was damn close: a PHB Sorc with Draconic Heritage & (lightning) Breath, he wore Scale Mail and wielded a Maul. His spells were mostly utility types, to be cast outside of combat, except his attack spells, which were ALL lightning based. In combat, he was use Maul, breathe Lightning, or cast a lightning-based spell 95% of the time.

Utter. Freaking. Blast.

As for others? I see 'em pretty frequently.

One guy I've been gaming with since 1998 has played a sniper type in every campaign we've been in together, in every RPG system, with the exception of one hammer-wielding dwarf. A young lady I gamed with for 3 years played a paladin who would not give up her sword of honor in exchange for any magical weapon. A guy in a HERO game I ran played a straight up hyper accurate gunslinger- with twin revolvers- while another guy ran a whip master.

Part of that may be because I play with gamers my own age- people in their 30s & 40s- whø also are mostly veterans. Which means they played many a session with PCs- in many systems- whose combat options were very proscribed.

IDK the reasons why, but I do see them.