D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Krachek]

I think it is decided each time the most clever and charismatic player play something else than fighter.
When the most skilled player at a table play a fighter the fighter is on every talk, every action, plan and scene.

 

[Gradine]

 

[Sacrosanct]

Here's my problem: does that fit with the tropes of fantasy fiction? Start naming iconic "fighting men" of fantasy, and you come up with characters like the Three Musketeers, D'Artagnan, Conan, Fafhrd, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir, Faramir, Madmartigan and arguably even including people like Robin Hood, Lan, and Aragorn. These "fighters" aren't just fighters. They have other abilities, being able to play the face of the party, use stealth, survive in the woods, and so forth. To pigeon-hole them as "the combat class" is to do a massive disservice to the fiction.

I think it's worth noting that nearly every person you mentioned up there was a multi or dual classed NPC in D&D. When you have a handful of classes, you can't mirror every archetype. So rather than bloat up every class you do have, you just multi-classed into another class to get the skills represented in fiction.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Similarly, "Swashbuckler" is as much a Fighter-archetype as it is a Rogue one. Madmartigan? He, too, may be multi-classed, but the "greatest swordsman who ever lived" had better be primarily a fighter, or the class is silly.

Why? Only he called himself that. Well, I guess Willow did too, but not because he actually was, but because Madmartigan was the one to call himself that. What evidence do we have that he was the greatest that ever lived? He was very good, but how do we know greatest? He sure seems like a F/T to me.

You mean like Ned or Robb Stark, or John Snow; all of whom have multiple skills, are well-learned, persuasive, and can survive in the wilderness, track, sneak, ride, and are reasonably athletic?

Or the many knights of Arthurian and other Chivalric romance who are almost always skilled woodsmen AND accomplished courtiers in addition to being skilled combatants and accomplished riders?

Or the Samurai of Japanese legend (and reality) who were expected to cultivate artistic pursuits in addition to being able to use weapons well, both on horseback and not?

Or the various characters in "The Thirteenth Warrior," say? Many of whom were skilled in things other than just fighting. ALL of them were reasonably stealthy, perceptive, trained sailors, and soldiers who could ride horses and build siege defenses. Yes, they all had specialties, but like Roman Legionaires, they're definitely more than just combatants.

And then there's all the heroes of Greek myth and legend, most of whom are basically just fighters (albeit also often demigods), including Achilles, Odysseus, Hercules, Perseus, Theseus, Jason, and the rest of the crew of the Argo.

And I think that case can be made for just about ALL of the "Fighter types" in legends and fiction. Yes, they are skilled combatants, but that alone doesn't define them.

Where does it describe these people as being expert trackers or stealth? Everything else you describe is just a good INT or CHA score. You don't need a mechanic to track artistic or courtesan skills. A basic INT or CHA check is just fine for that. So all of those characters just had good stats is all.

As I'm reading your posts, it seems like you're taking the position that unless a PC has a defined power or skill at something, they aren't good at it. I think I have a fundamental disagreement with that, especially in earlier D&D versions.