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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7189207" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Fair enough, except that why in game-world terms would a fighter be the only one capable of being a leader and such. If your world is a feudal society then it makes perfect sense. One of the key aspects of granting land was that they were responsible for mustering an army to help defend the kingdom and fight wars. In a pseudo-medieval (and almost never feudal) society, why couldn't a wizard or some other class meet the same requirement?On the other hand, why limit the fighter's options as well?The thing that fighters do well, better than anybody else, is fight.A knight or cavalier is a mounted warrior (and trained with all of the martial arts of the land - archery, polearms, swords, wrestling, even swimming). So athletics certainly makes sense, and giving them expertise for athletics skills would be a good option. Leadership abilities also make sense for them. But many fighters aren't highly trained knights. They might just be strong and spend a lot of time in combat. So they probably wouldn't have the leadership, riding, or even the breadth of training. Of course, some fighters are more dexterity based, so not quite the same as your standard athletic and strength-based knight.OD&D/AD&D fighters were clearly modeled after the medieval knight concept. But that's a narrow view of what is perhaps one of the broadest classes. I guess that's where I get stuck.What abilities should all fighters have?; and What abilities could a fighter have that other classes shouldn't?</blockquote>

Verification