Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6665084" data-attributes="member: 8461">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?</blockquote>

Verification