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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6665553" data-attributes="member: 4937">For me the first represents anyone formally trained at arms for the purposes of combat of some sort.This runs the gambit to me of a soldier on one hand, to an aristocratic duelist on the other.   The mark of a fighter class character is their mastery of arms and combat with arms, whether at the scale of leading men into battle or at the scale of a one on one personal combat.  A properly constructed fighter class for me allows you to play any sort of character of that sort.What I have tended to see happen since 2e and certainly since 3e in earnest is for people to pigeon hole fighters into narrower and narrower roles so that the scope of a fighter becomes smaller and smaller over time and the number of martial classes proliferates.  An ideally designed class for me would take all the concepts of soldier, duelist, marshal, swashbuckler, cavalier, and so forth and make them all available to mix and match out of the same class.Note that this design shouldn't preclude having some skills outside of combat, and any skills related to combat, whatever those would be should obvious be within the purview of the fighter.   For me these include broadly athletics and especially running, endurance especially marching and carrying of loads, leadership, intimidation and military bearing, the appraisal of and care of weapons, and in the context of a culture where military training was often equated with aristocratic social rank or was a stepping stone to same at least the very minimum of access to aristocratic social skills.</blockquote>

Verification