What is the fighter class to you?

[Alzrius]

Looking over the debate about the 5E fighter that's going on, I had a thought about how the discussion is being framed.

To me, it seems that when people talk about the fighter, they're having two different conversations at the same time.

The first conversation is a debate over how the fighter is portrayed, in terms of what powers/abilities he has. One side wants to have a fighter that ultimately becomes an extremely skilled human (or demihuman) but doesn't innately develop any powers that are beyond what a character with no magic (not just no spellcasting, but no mystical/mythical abilities whatsoever) could do. They basically want a "peak-human" type of character, a la Conan or Captain America.

The flipside to this are people who want a fighter that (eventually) develops magical/mystical/mythical abilities (which, again, are not spellcasting per se). These are the fighters that resemble superheroes that have out-and-out super powers, anime heroes, or most characters from fighting video games (e.g. Ryu, Sub-Zero, etc.). These characters are still "supposed" to be damage-dealers, but there's no particular reason why they can't have various powers that are - whether implicitly or explicitly - beyond what an "ordinary person" can do.

I see this as being distinct from the second conversation, which is about what function fighters fulfill in the course of game-play. Here, the question becomes what the fighter can do outside of combat.

In this regard, one side holds that the fighter doesn't really have much of a role outside of combat, and that's largely okay. The fighter's niche is (usually single-target) damage-dealing, and in this regard it does exactly what it sets out to do. For those on this side of the debate, the fighter doesn't really need to be able to do much else, simply because that's not what the class is designed to do. If you wanted to be an explorer or a social butterfly, the line of thinking goes, why would you play a class called "the fighter"?

Opposite to this are those who think that the fighter should not be inherently pigeon-holed away from non-combat functions. Here, the mode of thinking is that the fighter should have some method by which it can do more than just kill things. Moreover, it should not just be able to contribute in this regard, but of contribute meaningfully, which means doing so in a way that another class won't easily eclipse. The idea that the fighter has fewer options for overall game-play is the central point, here.

These conversations are distinct, and yet they often overlap, mostly because the question of what abilities the fighter has become intermingled with questions of what the fighter should be able to do (well). For example, someone who wants the fighter to be able to have as many options for non-combat interaction will often conflate this with a lack of magical powers on the scale of spellcasters, etc.

So keeping this distinction in mind, what do you think the fighter class should be? Should it have superhuman powers beyond that of the commoner, or should it be an ordinary person that's pushed himself to his absolute limits? Is it alright for it to be focused on little more than fighting, or should the fighter have non-combat options comparable to other classes?

 

[gamerprinter]

Not being a 5e person, I haven't looked (nor will look) at any 5e discussion. That said, I would say I would agree with the proponents that a fighter should always be portrayed as a highly skilled, general martial combatant, that gets the best of Conan in strength and skill, but never gain pseudo-magical capability. Looking at the various "half-caster" class features in PF, with some spell-like abilities does not belong to a fighter.

Regarding the second part, allowing fighters more skill points, or some kind of add-on subsystem of extraordinary abilities seems viable to allow a fighter some out-of-combat capability. I can see a justification for that.

Back in 1e days, before specialization in combat styles became a thing, a fighter was supposed to be good at using any kind of martial weapon. Whatever weapons he carried, or found in a dungeon could be optimally used, and be more effective in the hands of a fighter, than any other class. While specialization made fighters more skilled at whatever weapon and combat style each preferred, at the same time it greatly limited the overall general capability of fighter. I don't think the 1e type of fighter can be achieved with the modern game's need for specialization - the too concepts are incongruent, which is unfortunate.

Between fighters and rangers, I've always preferred ranger, probably because of the out-of-combat (at least in wilderness situations) capability of the ranger, while still essentially being a "fighter". Without truly emulating a ranger, if fighter could gain access to some out of combat capability, it would be an improvement, though I have no specifics on how that should be done.

 

[Dandu]

Yue Fei was a famous Chinese general of the Song Dynasty who was reported to be a great warrior, strategist, martial artist (supposedly founding several styles of martial arts), and scholar (by upbringing).

I don't find any partcularily compelling reason why fighter should be limited to the battlefield, as fighting in wars successfully requires a good amount of skill in addition to strength of arms.

 

[diaglo]

are we talking any edition?

if so to me the fighting man is a template just like all the rest of the classes to play what you want to play.

you, the referee, and the group (in a slight way) help to decide how your fun is incorporated into the campaign.

 

[steeldragons]

We run into a lot of trouble in these discussions...and I find it increasingly to be a cultural/cross-cultural problem, not particularly a D&D, gaming or even "internet" one. It is the problem of binary thinking. Everything must be 0 or 1. Everything must be this...or that. Black/White.

The idea that something can be many things at once...with shades of grey throughout...seems to be a dying mode of thought.

The Fighter is...

• the default warrior class.
• the widest swathe of possible warrior archetypes: knights, mercenaries, soldiers, pit fighters, gladiators, warlords and military strategists, common thugs or elite bodyguards, and even those archetypes that have independent classes, like barbarians, hunters/woodsmen/rangers, martial artists, and many more character types, such as many warriors of ancient myth and legend can be Fighters.
• the class that should be at the fore of battle, preferably blocking incoming attacks for the squishy guys in the back.
• the best/most trained with using armor and weapons, both using them and dealing damage
• dependent on their physical strength moreso than other classes.
• the simplest class and, as such, the easiest for new players to grasp and get them immersed in the fantasy world.
• ,at its roots, for D&D, defined by a lack of magical or supernatural ability...though certain rare specialities/subclasses/archetypes may include some magical ability or training.
• good for carrying stuff, intimidating folks, breaking down doors, and busting heads.
• any kind of person, as far as personality traits, in or outside of combat, the player imagines them to be.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Now that we are beyond the realm of any specific edition, the fighter, to me is an all around combat specialist, hence the name fighter. Logically, if a game features a class called "fighter" we can assume the designers intended the class to excel at combat above all others.

When another class approaches the fighter in combat effectiveness, then the fighter class is a pointless one.

 

[howandwhy99]

Fighting Man is a general character class suitable only in campaigns that include combat and a class corresponding combat system.

Only the basic stats for combat matter to the class. HP, AC, To Hit ability, plus military knowledge and appropriate proficiency with arms and armor. In these things the F-M is paramount.

Subclasses include customized versions where limitations and/or additions have modified the core. These allow players to be a combat class (a class primarily about combat), yet also begin with more customization. Paladin oaths and powers. Ranger loyalties and greater magic use. Barbarian tribalism with increased physical endurance and ferocity at the cost of much proficiency and knowledge.

Points for F-M are scored for winning battles (not necessarily killing opponents). It is almost always the class young kids want to play and should, though it is not simplest. F-M are tough to kill, can stand up to regular fighting a few times in one day, and even get to use most treasure that relates to combat. Add a future likely full of fame, fortune, and rulership and it's not hard to see the appeal.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't find any partcularily compelling reason why fighter should be limited to the battlefield, as fighting in wars successfully requires a good amount of skill in addition to strength of arms.

IMHO the classes of D&D are supposed to be adventuring archetypes i.e. focused on the roles they will cover in the middle of an adventure. They are not social archetypes primarily, although there are people who choose to play fantasy settings where the two are nearly the same thing (and then they think in terms of e.g. the Wizard being also a "job"). 5e actually highlights the difference between the two by offering both a class (adventuring archetype/role) and a background (social archetype/role). With this in mind, a soldier is a social role, because a war is not an adventure, not in traditional D&D terms where "adventure" is pretty much always something involving a small isolated group of PCs engaged in problem-solving scenarios.

Because of that, yes the Fighter class should be limited to adventuring features by default, which doesn't mean that your Fighter cannot have something war-related in addition... but not all Fighters.

OTOH, because adventures are not only strictly combat (and in fact originally they were more about the exploration phase), it actually makes a lot of sense that the Fighter has indeed skills that aren't strictly combat-related, but rather represent the capabilities of surviving threats and dangers more easily than others. For instance, I find that the 5e class feature Indomitable nails the point pretty much.

Hint: in very old D&D editions, the Fighter was explicitly mentioned to be possibly the only character who could take a dungeon adventure alone and survive

[*]the simplest class and, as such, the easiest for new players to grasp and get them immersed in the fantasy world.

Despite agreeing with everything else you say, I strongly object to this one... There is really no reason why the Fighter should be this, rather than another class.

 

[steeldragons]

Despite agreeing with everything else you say, I strongly object to this one... There is really no reason why the Fighter should be this, rather than another class.

Fair enough. I didn't say it "should be", I said it "is."

Allow me to elucidate.

Get a new person to play a game of D&D. They have never played D&D before. They have seen, probably a few fantasy movies. Maybe some comic books or a novel. All they know how to do is roll a die.

Here's a Fighter. You're all outfitted with your armor and weapons. You're "tough" so you [probably] won't die in the first fight. You're physically strong.

You get to a rusty gate. Do you want to try to push it open with your muscles? Yes? Great! Roll the die.

Oh no! There's goblins coming at you! Do you want to swing your sword or run away? Swing your sword? Great! Roll this die. You HIT! Now you roll that die for damage and add your strength modifier...What's your "+" for your Strength score? Awesome.

It's the goblin's turn now. He's swinging his sword at you...

The Fighter PC is in the world. Knows their [very most] basic job and abilities. That player is playing D&D...hopefully imagining their character, envisioning the fight, getting more and more enwrapt in the fantasy story he/she is helping to create with every decision, action, and die roll.

There is a reason that nearly every one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books in the dawn of the game and the sample character/game in the Red box Basic set Player's manual were all fighter (or otherwise uncomplicated) adventurers.

Want to be a wizard? Ok. No armor. That's simple. Staff or dagger? Ok, now pick X many spells from this list of Z. <read descriptions> Done yet? <read read> Done yet? <read read> Done yet? Can you pick from those cleric spells? No. Why not? Well, because...<explain the types of magic and how they fit/work in the game world>. So you ready? Ok?...You can cast these spells this many times...Well, <explain spellcasting, spell slots, spell levels, and generally how magic works in the game, mechanically> Ok? So those are the ones you want in your book? Great! Now we can adventure.

Oh no a goblin is coming at you! ...Well, you can cast a spell or run away or hit it with your staff...Well which ones do you have? Yeah, sure. You can use that one. ...Yeah, that one would work too...Right. If you cast it, you can't use it again (or in 5e: "...,your slot is used up and you only have this many for the rest of the day, now.").

So you...you're gonna....?....Ok, take a minute.

FIGHTER?! What're you doing? Brilliant. Roll.

Come in with a Cleric? FIRST, there's the nearly identical conversations re: magic, spells, divine/arcane, PLUS the joys of explaining the mythologies and divinities, undoubtedly scratching the surface of the cosmology and planar structure, and religions of the game world. Choose a deity. Well, a deity is...It's a polytheistic world, ya know, like the Greeks or Egyptians...Yes...also like "the vikings" and Thor. No you can not be Chris Hemsworth. Yes, I know you are using a hammer. You can look like him! But you'll be mortal and serving a god/goddess. No, that one's an evil guy. No, that one's all about war and death and you said you want to be all about light and healing. Well, take a minute to go through this world-bible and figure out which one you think is most in line with the character you want to play. I'll get back to you.

Come in with a Rogue? Little simpler. No magic, anyway. Ok. Here's your armor and these weapons. Now, you can do run away, swing your sword, orrrr this, this, this, this...and that also. Wudduya want to do?

The complexity of the class and their features/abilities are, naturally, subject to change and variation depending on the game system and the class' "balance" and ability to "do their job" in relation to other classes in the game.

But, the Fighter, by design, is [and should remain] the "gateway drug" of D&D.

People coming in with really strong likes/opinions of other fantasy stuff are going to gravitate toward their magic or their skills or their holy warriors because they're excited about them. Not everyone who starts playing D&D is one of those people. And for them, "Here's a fighter. Here's what you can do. Swing your sword." is an AWESOME game [to start with ]!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First question:
I have no problem with Fighters who have abilities that are, explicitly, beyond the mundane. I don't even necessarily have a problem with Fighters whose abilities (eventually) transcend what is natural, e.g. cleaving fireballs in two or reflecting spells with a blade or whatever. If people wish to make a beyond-the-mundane Fighter whose abilities are explicitly magical, they absolutely should be able to do so. But for those people who absolutely do NOT want their abilities to be remotely "magical," even if they transcend the mundane and brush against the "superhuman" or even "supernatural"? They also should be able to do that.

Second question:
D&D has always had fairly well-understood arenas of importance in play. Combat has always been one of them, though its precise significance has varied, from the old-style "never fight fair, try not to fight much at all" to the more recent "tactical combat is cool" and everywhere in-between. Interacting with the people (and, sometimes, animals) populating the world has also always been there, just to varying degrees (from Hirelings to Diplomancers and others besides). And, finally, dealing with the hellholes we call Dungeons--all the ways they try to kill you, and all the issues of going There And Back Again.

At times, these things have been given specific names. Others, they've only been indirectly alluded to. Doesn't matter. The game has always placed some kind of importance on them. All classes are designed for playing that game. Thus, all classes should be designed to place importance on all three, regardless of their access to 'generic' resources beyond that.