Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5948848" data-attributes="member: 996">From the beginning, the problem with the Fighter hasn't been that it's too narrow, but too broad.  It was asked to model every archetype from knight to barbarian to soldier to tribal warrior to fencing master to archer to weapon specialist to gladiator to feudal lord. All with nothing to it's name but d10 HD and a nice attack matrix.Adding magic to the fighter cleaved off the Ranger and Paladin.  Taking magic away from the Fighter gave us the Barbarian.  And, the Cavalier got pulled out of the fighter's bailiwick, too.In 3e, the Barbarian was made rage-tastic, and the Cavalier was folded back into the fighter who was made customizeable through feats - and still had to cover every non-magical combat-capable heroic fantasy archetype.  Then, in 3.5 they cleaved the Cavalier off the fighter again with the Knight.  3e also took away followers but added the Leadership feat.And, in 4e, the folded the Knight right back into the fighter again.  And, in Essentials, popped him out again, along with the Slayer.   (Must be some kinda pendulum thing.)True, the AD&D fighter could build a stronghold and attract followers.  But, so could just about  any 'name level' character.  Druids and Rangers didn't build strongholds, and Wizards didn't attract followers, IIRC.Also, 'broadening' the fighter from 'best at combat' to 'also good at large-scale combat' isn't really broadening him much.  What the fighter really needs is 'broadening' into the other two pillars - Interaction and Exploration, where no ed has ever given him much to do.On the combat side, the fighter really needs some help.  Other martial classes that'll let players have better tools to model sub-sets of the archetypes the poor fighter has been struggling to meet all this time.4e gave us the Warlord, which was a good start, covering the heroic leader archetype, and from a gamist standpoint, finally providing a solid alternative to the Cleric.  The warlord, BTW, could also do with some 'broadening' into the 'exploration' Pillar.The fighter, rather than being broadened, could be narrowed in it's combat role to it's classic 'fighting man' archetype - the extremely tough, stolid, heavy-infantry soldier who anchors a combat team, forming a solid front-line.  No fancy tricks, just good consistent offense and even better defense and staying power.  But, it should also be broadened into the other pillars.  A strong, dependable, disciplined soldier should be of use in exploration - he has great endurance, for instance, and, like a Roman Legionary could be part engineer and sapper as well as front-line fighter, he could be very perceptive, a trained observer with the discipline to stay alert on long watches and tiring marches.  An asset in Exploration.  He could also be a strong figure that inspires confidence in common people, powerful, yet not so strange as a magic-using character nor socially set apart like a knight or lord, knows how to negotiate from a position of strength, and understands the importance of winning allies and avoiding unnecessary conflict.  An asset in many social situations.This would leave room for other martial classes to better cover other archetypes, and, incidentally, present other, more complex or resource-management oriented sub-systems to model their martial prowess.Obviously, the Warlord, having appeared in a PH1, should be one of these, covering the feudal lord/heroic leader/commander sort of archetypes.  Unlike the classic fighter, the warlord is set apart - by social class, past military service, or simple acclaim - as a leader of other warriors.  The Warlord could use different mechanics from the fighter's simple big-number attacks/AC/hps, or from the 'maneuvers' being suggested, and directly aid his party.  The Warlord might let allies tap their Hit Dice in combat and/or have take actions that also allow an ally to take a specific action and/or have 'battle plans' that allow him to call on some specific bonus, enhancement, or specific free actions by allies at some point in the course of a given combat.  Yes, possibly including limitted-use 'powers' like a 4e martial character.  The warlord was introduced by 4e, afterall.In the 5e spirit of not pegging classes to roles, the Warlord could have alternative options that make it less of a 4e-styled leader, and instead of "healing" and boosting allies, he could be a 'leader' in the conventional sense, bringing NPC allies - a band of fighting men - to the party instead of leading the party, himself.  With a well-drilled band of followers, the warlord could orchestrate them to form shield-walls, cut down lesser foes by the dozen, launch barrages of missile weapons and so forth - all resolved on the warlord's turn by the warlord player, with a few decisions and rolls rather than individually.Other candidates might be a consummate Archer, a fast/light-armored or "scientific" Duelist,   a highly-trained Weapon Specialist or Martial-Artist with a special 'style,' or a daring Warrior out to prove his courage.</blockquote>

Verification