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

[Tesral]

What does everyone else think? Have fighters been shortchanged by being pigeon-holed as "the meat-shield class?"

Yes. Especially by the 3e skill system. Again D&D is a "No" system. Put down that interesting idea and get back in your box. You start with 2 skill points per level, less than the other core classes and you further handicap by non-class skills costing twice as much. Any skill that is not something to do with being a fighter is non class.

I fixed the system. Thieves keep a box of their own skill as per 2ed. Everyone gets four skills per level. No class/non-class skills. It's like telling me it is harder for me to learn to play the piano because I am a butcher not a librarian.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Marvel Super Heroes, in various versions. They pretty much all have both rules for rolling your own supers and for translating ones from the page onto the sheet.

FASERIP was the first RPG that really got me into modeling fictional characters and settings with game rules. I can't thank it enough for that!

 

[Bill Zebub]

The game needed a way to resolve characters being good at things other than combat, and basing it entirely on attributes is overly simplistic.

Right. So you resolve it through narration and problem solving, not things on the character sheet. If that's 50+% of the game, then it matters less who has more buttons on their character sheet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. So you resolve it through narration and problem solving, not things on the character sheet. If that's 50+% of the game, then it matters less who has more buttons on their character sheet.

That is one way of solving it. I prefer a balance of in-character roleplay and robust, setting-modeling mechanics myself.

 

[JohnSnow]

This why Level Up has IMO a better class list. Not counting the many 3pp classes (several of which are not magical in nature at their core), 1pp mundane classes include the adept, fighter, marshal, ranger, rogue, and savant. Plenty of choices if you don't want cast spells or otherwise play a character with supernatural powers.

I think I would like Level Up if I were not pathologically opposed to making 5e (especially combat) more complex and tedious.

I’ve mentioned this before, but I sword fight as a hobby, so most attempts to add complexity to combat moves just translates to “more unrealistic naughty word that bugs the crap out of me.” Now, I have not explicitly delved into Level Up, but as an example, I hate 2024’s “mastery properties” and (for example) longswords that only so slashing damage.

But maybe I should give Level Up a look.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think I would like Level Up if I were not pathologically opposed to making 5e (especially combat) more complex and tedious.

I’ve mentioned this before, but I sword fight as a hobby, so most attempts to add complexity to combat moves just translates to “more unrealistic naughty word that bugs the crap out of me.” Now, I have not explicitly delved into Level Up, but as an example, I hate 2024’s “mastery properties” and (for example) longswords that only so slashing damage.

But maybe I should give Level Up a look.

It's a great game, but keep in mind I have no problem with complexity if it adds depth and more-or-less maintains setting logic. Not a fan of mastery properties either, but probably for different reasons than you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right. So you resolve it through narration and problem solving, not things on the character sheet. If that's 50+% of the game, then it matters less who has more buttons on their character sheet.

As I said, that might work for some things. I flat out don't think its going to resolve whether someone can climb something or swim. Or to the degree it can, if you wanted to do that you could do it with fighting, too. (In fact, I'll flat out say someone could probably do a better job of resolving combat with narration than trying to do so with swimming).