What is the fighter class to you?

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Dandu]

A fighter is one who "fights". Those who are trained (soldiers, guards).

The fact one is not 0-level or is not a commoner means that as 1st-level ones has gotten some form of training to fight (combat).

It is that simple.

And what, is a wizard someone who has learned to wiz?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And what, is a wizard someone who has learned to wiz?

Clearly a Ranger is someone who ranges, and a Sorcerer is someone who sorcers. Paladins pal around. Barbarians bar--in both senses (because they bar, and also bar). Warlocks either war or lock, obviously, but the jury's still out on what it is that Clerics and Druids do.

Also, Bards sing. Because Barbarians already covered "bar" and "bar."

 

[ExploderWizard]

The fighter being "the one who fights" might sound simplistic and a bit funny but it is also true. If other classes besides the fighter are consistent and equal performers in combat then there really isn't any need for the class.

 

[Grogg of the North]

The fighter is a chassis for all (most?) martial tropes. The sell sword, valiant knight, highway man can all be fighters. I see the fighter as the one that stands between his friends and enemies, attacking those that dare approach. He doesn't have mystical/magical powers but his weapons as being as versatile as they are deadly. The shield can be used for defense or to stun his enemy with a quick blow. The hammer knocking down or, perhaps, launching foes. A sword used to disarm all that engage him. Or even a simple staff being used to trip up enemy combatants. The fighter's use of armor should be unparalled, at ease in full plate as if the fighter was in a tunic. In some editions most of this can be replicated with feats but I don't know if that is the right path to go. So, if I had to pick, I would say the fighter is closer to Captain America than Sub-Zero.

Outside of combat, the fighter should be able to contribute. I feel that part of the problem comes when players look at their skill list and get focused on that. Pathfinder alleviated this a bit with their handling cross class skills. One way to handle this is through role playing. While the wizard is scribing in his spellbook and the cleric is tending the temple, what's the fighter up to? If he's out making friends with the watch, the ranger they saved three adventures back, and the merchant caravans then you can solve some mechanical issues with non-mechanical means. This may not work at every table or with every player but I've seen it work to great affect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The fighter being "the one who fights" might sound simplistic and a bit funny but it is also true. If other classes besides the fighter are consistent and equal performers in combat then there really isn't any need for the class.

I guess it just sounds, to me, like it glibly side-steps the question. The clear intent is for people to be more specific than that. If an answer is both incredibly obvious and able to be stated in a single, six-word sentence...maybe we should give the benefit of the doubt and assume that people agree with that already? Because let me tell you: the people in various threads over in the 5e subforum all seem to think Fighter is "one who fights," but have wildly divergent attitudes about what "one who fights" means. For example, my suggestion of various "soldier"-informed features was immediately shot down with a response that not all Fighters--despite being "ones who fight"--are "trained soldiers."

So clearly "one who fights" doesn't answer the question in a meaningful sense. The shape of the universe is a quarthex, and a quarthex is defined as two bithexes, so obviously you know everything there is to know about the shape of the universe now, right?

That's why I made the joke post. It may be a technically correct answer, but it gets us nowhere.

 

[Dandu]

For example, my suggestion of various "soldier"-informed features was immediately shot down with a response that not all Fighters--despite being "ones who fight"--are "trained soldiers."

What a barbarous response.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess it just sounds, to me, like it glibly side-steps the question. The clear intent is for people to be more specific than that. If an answer is both incredibly obvious and able to be stated in a single, six-word sentence...maybe we should give the benefit of the doubt and assume that people agree with that already? Because let me tell you: the people in various threads over in the 5e subforum all seem to think Fighter is "one who fights," but have wildly divergent attitudes about what "one who fights" means. For example, my suggestion of various "soldier"-informed features was immediately shot down with a response that not all Fighters--despite being "ones who fight"--are "trained soldiers."

So clearly "one who fights" doesn't answer the question in a meaningful sense. The shape of the universe is a quarthex, and a quarthex is defined as two bithexes, so obviously you know everything there is to know about the shape of the universe now, right?

That's why I made the joke post. It may be a technically correct answer, but it gets us nowhere.

The answer is so simple but no one wants to accept it. In order for the fighter class to be worth having it has to be the best at combat. Once the " everyone has to contribute equally to combat" Kool-Aid has been drunk, then the fighter's reason for being goes down the hatch with it.

 

[D'karr]

Except contributing equally to combat is not the goal. Contributing meaningfully to combat is the goal and that does not have to be in competition to being the best at combat.

If the measure of meaningfulness in combat is X and the fighter provides 90-100% of X, the option for class B providing between 70-80% of X is still meaningful but that class is not the best at combat. If every other class fall in the 70-90% range of X they are still meaningful in combat but they are not as good as the fighter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The answer is so simple but no one wants to accept it. In order for the fighter class to be worth having it has to be the best at combat. Once the " everyone has to contribute equally to combat" Kool-Aid has been drunk, then the fighter's reason for being goes down the hatch with it.

First: D'karr covered the "meaningful does not mean equal."

Second, if other classes are getting more combat stuff so they can contribute more in that sphere, doesn't it then naturally follow that Fighters should get more non-combat stuff so they can contribute more in that sphere?

In other words, if we're questioning the "combat is for Fighters, not (really) for other classes" premise, why aren't we also questioning the complimentary premise, "things for other classes aren't (really) for Fighters"? If other classes have gained breadth by expanding into the combat sphere, increased breadth in other areas for the Fighter seems a perfectly viable alternative.