Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7190347" data-attributes="member: 20323">So, I have three answers there.First, subclasses (martial archetypes) are a *great* place to put varied non-combat abilities. There's nothing saying that ALL fighters need to have the same exploration/interaction features. In fact, if you look back at many of the AD&amp;D2e kits, you'll see a repeating pattern of: The Cavalier receives a +3 reaction from anyone of his own culture (except criminals and characters of evil alignment, from whom he receives a –3). That's from The Complete Fighter's Handbook, and the cavalier kit wasn't alone – barbarian and berserkers definitely got that +3 bonus with different groups, and there probably are others I'm not remembering.Second, as I previously pointed out in this thread, in old school D&amp;D fighters had built-in non-combat identity as &quot;Barons&quot;, ascending to political leadership, gaining followers, and earning tax revenue. A secondary identity as &quot;the gear guy&quot; was also built-in, with increased starting gold, percentile strength greatly increasing maximum load a fighter could carry without suffering encumbrance, and the only one who could use magic swords. That were part of the non-combat identity of ALL fighters and it was stripped away.Third, I would assert that the fighter originated as a defender. And I'm not only referring to a tactical role. I'm also referring to the origin of a warrior class that was for the defense of a tribe or settlement. This assertion is reflected in the language used to describe the fighter class in the Rules Cyclopedia: In the D&amp;D® game, fighters protect their weaker friends and allies. Compared to a ranger (who seeks out the horizon), a fighter can be seen as the one responsible for protecting the hearth – earlier I gave some examples of camp talents that I'm playing around with in my own fighter redesign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7190347, member: 20323"] So, I have three answers there. First, [B]subclasses[/B] (martial archetypes) are a *great* place to put varied non-combat abilities. There's nothing saying that ALL fighters need to have the same exploration/interaction features. In fact, if you look back at many of the AD&D2e kits, you'll see a repeating pattern of: [I]The Cavalier receives a +3 reaction from anyone of his own culture (except criminals and characters of evil alignment, from whom he receives a –3).[/I] That's from [U]The Complete Fighter's Handbook[/U], and the cavalier kit wasn't alone – barbarian and berserkers definitely got that +3 bonus with different groups, and there probably are others I'm not remembering. Second, as I previously pointed out in this thread, in [B]old school D&D[/B] fighters had built-in non-combat identity as "Barons", ascending to political leadership, gaining followers, and earning tax revenue. A secondary identity as "the gear guy" was also built-in, with increased starting gold, percentile strength greatly increasing maximum load a fighter could carry without suffering encumbrance, and the only one who could use magic swords. That were part of the non-combat identity of ALL fighters and it was stripped away. Third, I would assert that the [B]fighter originated as a defender[/B]. And I'm not only referring to a tactical role. I'm also referring to the origin of a warrior class that was for the defense of a tribe or settlement. This assertion is reflected in the language used to describe the fighter class in the [U]Rules Cyclopedia[/U]: [I]In the D&D® game, fighters protect their weaker friends and allies.[/I] Compared to a ranger (who seeks out the horizon), a fighter can be seen as the one responsible for protecting the hearth – earlier I gave some examples of camp talents that I'm playing around with in my own fighter redesign. [/QUOTE]

Verification