The Fighter's Identity

[BobTheNob]

I think the warlord is a fair extension of the fighter to help give him some identity. I cant get past the broad definition of the fighter being the core problem. Both the ranger and paladin have combat potency and utility, but as long as the fighter is the fighter...that what he does...he fights!

I am on board with the "other 2 pillar" issue. I can see how the suggestion would help sometimes, but is a bit too "sometimes" for my taste. Its not to say I dont mind the warlord idea. Its a solid enough idea, and would make an awesome theme, but for my take its just not getting the fighter to the point that he has enough non-combat relevance.

I hate to say this, but Im wondering whether the Fighter and Rogue classes should have been divided. That the two and just the combat and non-combat expressions of the martialist separated at birth and doomed to never be whole.

 

[pemerton]

I'm somewhat partial to Str-based knocking around of furniture, opponents, etc. with effects geared towards making the whole party better. The fighter hits the orc and knocks him over the table, where the rogue gets an easier shot at him. Then next round he swings at the other orc, forcing him back away from the wizard. Of course, for Next you need a version of such battlefield control that works well in theatre of the mind.

I'm thinking about ways of doing this.

One is to give the fighter player a certain ration of "advantage" points - which can be spent following a successful attack to grant advantage or some similar benefit to an ally. (Similar, then, to the 4e rationing scheme, if a bit more abstract.) This is likely to be at least as controversial as fighter surges, however.

Another way is to link it more tightly to the professed desired to enage the fiction. The trick is to do this without it becoming tedious and/or repetitive. One of the constraints here is that there is no reason for an ally ever to decline the fighter's help, and hence it will be deployed whenever feasible.

One option would be to make it an alternative to Reaper - so a bit like 4e-style at-wills, the fighter player has to choose between doing auto-damage, or granting an ally a buff based on some description of the outcome of his/her attack.

 

[Gold Roger]

I feel the fighter needs more. Not in the combat department (assuming he gets optional maneuvers and such), but aside from that, in the other two pillars, to use that particular terminology.

Just throwing out some ideas:

The OP idea of followers and stronghold. I don't think followers should be hard coded into the class (certainly should be there as campaign option), but it touches into something I think is very important for every fighter: Reputation.

To me, no matter what type of fighter you want to play, he lives by the sword. And living by the sword means you earn your living by the sword and to succeed in that, you have to build a reputation. And in turn, if you succeed, you automatically gain reputation. The wizard can get away with being a mystic and locking himself away in some tower, the rogue will propably keep a low profile, to better set up his shady operations, the cleric has to represent his god in addition to himself. But the fighter is on man with his weapon, his combat ability is a ware he has to sell (often literary) and to do so he has to turn himself into a brand. Fighters who level gain cool nicknames, titels and memetic badass status.

So lets say fighters gain reputation perks at certain level, that colour his interactions. Maybe he has the "monster slayer" reputation for facing terrible beasties, maybe a "no one left behind reputation" for carrying more of is allies and hirelings through his operations than usual, maybe he has the "scary psycho" or "unbreakable loyalty" reputation.

This would translate into interaction benefits with groups that respects a given reputation. The "monster hunter" can walk up to a unknown wild tribe, right into the leaders tent and talk to him on equal level, because he's proven. He can talk trash to a dragon and the beast will actually consider his boasts.

The guy with "no one left behind" will always find support from the relatives of people he worked with and saved and has an easy time recruiting help.

The "scary psycho" can walk into the worst den of villainy, where every other member of his group would be shanked and robbed 3 feet in, just for a chat and some info.

etc.


For the exploration pillar, I'd like the fighter to be based of endurance, personal reliability and the ability to push through, basically being awesome by being practical. Basically stuff that says "the fighter is the guy who always has your back". This thread has some great ideas for that already. Other stuff of the top of my head:

-Armor not hampering fighters as much as other classes during exploration

-increased marching speed

-Reducing the amount of time needed at a long rest (maybe even for the entire group)

-Improving the chances of success on tasks the entire group needs to do, by organizing and helping out

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure I entirely agree that the fighter should be broken down further - the other prime classes: wizard, rogue and cleric cover a pretty broad range as well.

As Tony said, not as broad as some may think.

The cleric models a weird version of a medieval healer/warrior priest. Its pretty poor at representing specific faiths (which has lead to specialty priests and domains) nor has it been good at representing shamans, druids, or Friar Tuck-like monks.

The rogue is good at roguish skills. His class abilities lock him into scout, trapfinder, and opportunistic attacker. He's certainly NOT the generic "skills guy" unless your typical spy, sage, diplomat, and huntsman comes with trapfinding and sneak attack.

The wizard really only represents book-learning sagely and frail wizards, which comes to a head every time someone tries to make Gandalf/Elric/Harry Potter into a D&D wizard...

I have no problem with fighters filling the "heavy armor, lots of weapons, tough as nails and gives as good as he gets" role in the game. He shouldn't and really can't be Aragorn, Legolas, Conan, Lancelot, and D'Artganin, nor should be be expected to...

 

[Vikingkingq]

I have no problem with fighters filling the "heavy armor, lots of weapons, tough as nails and gives as good as he gets" role in the game. He shouldn't and really can't be Aragorn, Legolas, Conan, Lancelot, and D'Artganin, nor should be be expected to...

Erm. Why? Isn't that in the Fighter Design Goals?

"Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The OP idea of followers and stronghold. I don't think followers should be hard coded into the class (certainly should be there as campaign option), but it touches into something I think is very important for every fighter: Reputation.

To me, no matter what type of fighter you want to play, he lives by the sword. And living by the sword means you earn your living by the sword and to succeed in that, you have to build a reputation. And in turn, if you succeed, you automatically gain reputation. The wizard can get away with being a mystic and locking himself away in some tower, the rogue will propably keep a low profile, to better set up his shady operations, the cleric has to represent his god in addition to himself. But the fighter is on man with his weapon, his combat ability is a ware he has to sell (often literary) and to do so he has to turn himself into a brand. Fighters who level gain cool nicknames, titels and memetic badass status.

I really like this idea, because the reputation becomes a coupling for the fighter to interact with other parts of the system and the game world, instead of something embedded into the fighter itself. There is the potential to hang a lot of mechanics, flavor, and options off of that coupling.

My one objection is that "reputation" is something that many characters would care about, and care about in this way. Perhaps the answer to that objection is give everyone the possibility of developing fame and reputation, but key the fighter's reputation off of heraldry (or the cultural equivalents, depending on game world). So the fighter's sword has a name. He has a banner. His shield, mount, tabard, etc. carries his coat of arms. It needs to be a bit broader than that, to get away from the "noble" bits where relevant.

So the same way that the fighter approaches combat, his reputation is "in your face." It's readily accessible and straight-forward, for good or ill. However, this also makes it easier for the fighter to develop his reputation. The wizard's research, the rogue's shady deals, the cleric's reflected glory--they still get a rep, but it develops more slowly and is not as apparent to those around them.

 

[howandwhy99]

What say you?

You know, I was thinking what you said is what "the best at fighting" means, but yeah, Fighting-Men should definitely get all of this. They know how to use siege weapons due to class training. Other classes do not. They know how to arrange into a shield wall. Others don't. They know how to use every weapon and armor in the book. Others don't.

The domain of the magic user is magic. All of it. The domain of the cleric is the interactions between intelligent creatures. Again, all of it. A Fighter's domain is warfare. Of course there is overlap between these, but each is about perspective and the game is balanced accordingly within each.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In the recent AMA session he had on reddit, @mearls mentioned that the Fighter might need a broader identity beyond "the best at fighting" (for instance, the Wizard is also a sage, a master of lore who knows tons of esoteric stuff). This got me thinking.

In earlier editions, Fighters attracted followers. They led by example, and others were attracted by his prowess. In 2e, the Dragon Kings supplement for Dark Sun clearly posited the Fighter as the master of warfare (a mix of what the Fighter and the Warlord are in 4e).

What if the Fighter could be not only the best at beating the tar out of his opponents with weapons, but also have an innate understanding of tactics, morale?

What say you?

I consider Roy my favorite example of Fighter. He is a stick-figure character based mostly on 3E rules, and in that term, he was deemed a Fighter. In 4E, he may have been considered a warlord.

A Fighter should be a leader. NOt in the 4E sense of sprinkling around healing and attack, damage or defense bonuses, but in story terms - the guy in charge, the guy people look up to for advice when it comes to tactics and strategies, the guy that inspires others to follow him. His ability in combat means one thing to everyone. This is the one guy that gets things done.

To distinguish him from other classes:

• A Bard is not a leader in that sense. He inspires people to greatness, but to achieve their own goals. At best, he tricks others to make his goals their goals, but he often just motivates them to do what they already want to do and help them be better at it. A Fighter in contrast would genuinely inspire with his personal goals.
• A Paladin would not be that different from a Fighter, but he would probably be focused more on morality and ethics rather than strategy and tactics. The Paladin will not always "get things done" the way the Fighter does, since the Paladin cannot fight dirty. But he will always appear righteous and just, which provides trust and inspiration.
• The Rogue is more "out for himself" (or just "by himself") and may manipulate people to follow him. If he assumes a leader role, it will likely be reluctant, as being in the spotlight like that is dangerous for his role. Or he would try to lead from hiding, having others assume the public leadership role.

That doesn't mean that Fighters are always in charge, but they have a tendency to be and good potential to be. And of course, "being in charge" can have different meaning in different parties. But in the long run, the Fighter is more likely to pick up some people (NPCs) that fight at his side. Even if it's just because he pays them well and mercenaries under his command are less likely to suffer an untimely demise than under others...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yes, the Fighter needs some breadth and schticks. The problem with "the best at fighting" is it does not work as a goal.

From a design perspective, you cannot have your Paladin or Ranger choose their ground for a fair fight and get their arse kicked by the NPC Fighter every time. These leads naturally to everyone else fighting almost as well as the fighting, plus getting the fun stuff on top, as we see in the non-Core add-ons.

 

[Klaus]

Random thoughts:

- Every cleric can heal. A cleric with the Herbalist theme heals better.
- Every wizard can cast spells. A wizard with the Magic-User theme casts more.
- Every rogue can hide. A rogue with the Lurker theme hides better.

If we assume those to be true, how about this:

Fighters know strategy and warfare, to some extent. By choosing different themes, a Fighter can focus on mastering a weapon (Weaponmaster), defending his companions (Guardian) or leading his allies in combat (Warlord). He remains competent in the other aspects, but gets to develop one further.