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

[doctorbadwolf]

Even Aragorn is primarily not a spellcaster, doesn't wear armor except for battles, and mostly (exclusively in the books) fights with a sword, not a bow. In the movies, he has a short hunting bow that he can (and does) use in battles, but it's a secondary weapon for him. But yeah, he's skilled in wilderness lore, can move stealthily, and is a learned figure, but why does any of that make him "not a fighter?"

Tbh i think it is because people want a character like Aragorn to be meaningfully different mechanically from a character like Boromir.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I go back to my initial premise that most of the fighters in fiction and myth are WAY more than just their combat prowess.

Maybe the way the Fighter class should have been structured is with subclasses focused on non-combat abilities, with each subclass having a specific speciality/focus.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm starting to feel like the "Fighters fight" is part of why they don't seem to know what to do with Rangers, beyond making them a sort of default "Fighter/Rogue/Druid." Which is (weirdly) what a Bard was in 1e, but I digress.

We're trying to keep fighters as the supreme combat class, and so the ranger can't step on the fighter's toes, and so we can't beef up the ranger with combat feats. We can't give the fighter too many non-combat abilities because then it will end up treading on the toes of the ranger (or the rogue).

I go back to my initial premise that most of the fighters in fiction and myth are WAY more than just their combat prowess. Take Lan, from The Wheel of Time. Ignoring (for the moment) the supernatural powers he has from being a Warder, and just look at his combat and non-combat skills. He's a master swordsman, a superb archer, a tracker, survivalist, horseman, with skills at sneaking, scouting, intimidation, persuasion, deception, and also an accomplished courtier. Is he multi-classed? The same assessment can be made of Fafhrd, Faramir, Boromir, Aragorn, Simon Snowlock (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn), Prince Arutha or Tomas (The Riftwar), Beowulf, Arthur, Lancelot, and even characters like Kelemvor (even ignoring his Werepanther curse) from D&D's own Avatar Trilogy.

I had to refresh my memory and I now admit that Conan does indeed both have the ability to go into a "Fighting madness" (Rage), and demonstrates it on a few occasions. But it seems to be a secondary feature of Conan's, not a regular and defining one.

I think Class-based games may have taken niche protection too far and it has devolved into cliches. Which brings to mind an idea for a different thread.

it's a thought i've had for a good while now that DnD classes suffers from too many of them having exclusive (or near exclusive) claim to certain mechanics for identity niche protection,

 

[Scribe]

it's a thought i've had for a good while now that DnD classes suffers from too many of them having exclusive (or near exclusive) claim to certain mechanics for identity niche protection,

It's weird, because other games don't really have this problem I feel?

Shadowdark and Daggerheart for example, have Fighters and Rangers that feel exactly like they should.

The SD Ranger in particular is perfection to me, as I've said many a time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm starting to feel like the "Fighters fight" is part of why they don't seem to know what to do with Rangers, beyond making them a sort of default "Fighter/Rogue/Druid." Which is (weirdly) what a Bard was in 1e, but I digress.

We're trying to keep fighters as the supreme combat class, and so the ranger can't step on the fighter's toes, and so we can't beef up the ranger with combat feats. We can't give the fighter too many non-combat abilities because then it will end up treading on the toes of the ranger (or the rogue).

I go back to my initial premise that most of the fighters in fiction and myth are WAY more than just their combat prowess. Take Lan, from The Wheel of Time. Ignoring (for the moment) the supernatural powers he has from being a Warder, and just look at his combat and non-combat skills. He's a master swordsman, a superb archer, a tracker, survivalist, horseman, with skills at sneaking, scouting, intimidation, persuasion, deception, and also an accomplished courtier. Is he multi-classed? The same assessment can be made of Fafhrd, Faramir, Boromir, Aragorn, Simon Snowlock (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn), Prince Arutha or Tomas (The Riftwar), Beowulf, Arthur, Lancelot, and even characters like Kelemvor (even ignoring his Werepanther curse) from D&D's own Avatar Trilogy.

I had to refresh my memory and I now admit that Conan does indeed both have the ability to go into a "Fighting madness" (Rage), and demonstrates it on a few occasions. But it seems to be a secondary feature of Conan's, not a regular and defining one.

I think Class-based games may have taken niche protection too far and it has devolved into cliches. Which brings to mind an idea for a different thread.

Again, the many combat, exploration and social options available to the fighter class in Level Up go a long way toward fixing these issues for me. If you want to stick to a pretty much D&D model it's IMO a good way to go.