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

[Bill Zebub]

Isn't that what backgrounds and feats are for? The class skills might represent skills that complement the class and the background can grant you those intelligence skills or the background feat can let you pick up skilled for extra skills. Even in 2014 the fighter gets a bonus feat at level 6 which can be used to customise the class but everyone seems to end up only picking up combat skills instead of a feat that makes them a little more well rounded. At some point I think it is less the class and more the player that is pigeonholing the fighter.

I think that's a killer point.

Want a fighter that's good at stuff other that combat? Look at all those juicy feats.

But remember that you won't be as good at combat as you could have been. No, you can't have it both ways.

/thread

 

[billd91]

But remember that you won't be as good at combat as you could have been. No, you can't have it both ways.

And that's appropriate. Choices choices choices... and their consequences.

 

[Tesral]

And that's appropriate. Choices choices choices... and their consequences.

But let there be choices. 3e as written removes them, AD&D doesn't have them to start with. Other editions vary to be sure. There is no reason the fighter muse be Sir Feudalmind.