Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6667816" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, but we who answer, that fighter means one that fights can't be held responsible for their limited imagination.The people who answered you in that way are right in one sense - not all fighters are soldiers.  But their answer then that the fighter class therefore can't be a soldier is predicated on the false assumption that having the option to be a soldier precludes the option to not be a soldier.  They could just as easily be answered, "Yes, but not all fighters aren't trained soldiers."  There response is therefore nonsense, and really is based on the unfortunate idea that a martial class should have a rigid list of powers.  While I don't like the 'everyone is a spellcaster' model, there is one aspect of everyone being a spellcaster that does produce the right sort of design and that is that spells inherently allow for very broad build customization.   No one gets in an argument that Wizards can't have access to fireball because not every Wizard is a fireball slinger.  They understand without knowing that they understand that just because a wizard could toss a fireball doesn't mean he has to learn or use the spell.   So while I don't like having martial classes limited by the same resource management limitations seen in spellcasting classes (the model seen in say Bo9S of 4e), I do like the idea of lists of interchangeable parts that can build up your particular fighter (the model of a fighter for the most part abandoned by Pathfinder).Yes, it does.  Again, just because you got one nonsense rebuttal by someone with a limited imagination doesn't mean the answer is meaningless.   The answer that a fighter is one that fights implies that those who give that answer mean that in their conception of a fighter, the class ought to be broad enough to include all concepts where the focus of the class is armed combat against an armed foe, and that any character that includes this idea ought to be able to gladly take up the class in full or in part in support of that idea.No, and I'll show you how far it gets us.It gets us past an answer like, "The fighter is a big dumb brute that hits things with a stick."   "No", says the answer "The fighter is one that fights", "A Fighter may be a big dumb brute that hits things with a stick, but it also must not be only a big dumb brute that hits things with a stick."  And it gets us past an answer like, "The fighter is a heavily armored tank that slugs it out toe to toe with its foes."   No, the fighter may be a heavily armored tank that slugs it out with its foes, but it must not be limited to that.And it gets us past answers like, "I need a special Swashbuckler class, because fighters can't be lightly armored figures that dance and leap athletically around their foes.", or "I need a special Marshall class, because fighters can't be cunning and charismatic leaders of men, who defeat their foes by wit, observation, skillful tactics and coordination."  The proper answer ought to be, "No, you can make all those things with the Fighter."And the reason for me that that has to be true, besides the fact that it is incredibly elegant, is that if you don't do that it becomes very difficult to make hybrid martial characters that are pretty good in multiple roles - say a character that is a bit of an archer/warlord/swashbuckler.   And among other things, I think if you aren't assuming that high level fighters can be good in multiple archetypes, then you are inherently assuming that spellcasters are at high levels always of a higher tier than fighters because spellcasters, via spell selection, will always at least be more flexible. In high level abstract, to me the idea fighter class design might look something like:"1st Level: Hmm.. I think I'll start with Novice Swashbuckler.""2nd Level: Hmmm.. lets add Novice Warlord.""3rd Level: Ok, Novice Master-of-Arms looks good.""4th Level: Now for Journeyman Swashbuckler.""5th Level: There are too many times I can't close to melee...I really need the versatility of Novice Archer."And so forth.</blockquote>

Verification