Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6641629" data-attributes="member: 996">&quot;Improvised&quot; is putting a nice spin on it, but, yes, in the olden days if you wanted to do much of anything other than hit things, use a special ability, or cast spells, you were prettymuch going to have to talk the DM into it, somehow.&nbsp;I've been running 5e, myself, not playing it.&nbsp; I do wonder, sometimes, why players choose the classes they do, when it seems like they'd really have more fun with something else.The Fighter does seem like the only option for certain archetypes.&nbsp; Your basic fantasy hero is probably going to be a fighter.&nbsp; If you're not casting spells, and not a Conan-clone barbarian, but still tough in a fight, that's about what's left.&nbsp; Thing is, your typical hero, even if he doesn't cast spells or have some sort of supernatural powers or mcguffin, tends to be really good at anything he turns his hand to.&nbsp; He won't just be tough in a fight, he'll be rallying the people, sneaking into heavily guarded dungeons to rescue the princess, scouting about in the woods, retrieving an artifact from a fiendishly trap-infested tomb, and so forth.&nbsp; So taking Fighter is just setting yourself up for disappointment.&nbsp; (Taking rogue will get you the ability to do some of those things, but you won't be tough in a fight, anymore, needing to be a sneaky back-stabber, instead - not too heroic.)D&amp;D also has an odd history of painting the fighter as a natural leader.&nbsp; 1e, with it's level titles drawn from military and noble rank, topping out at 'Lord,' and letting the fighter build a stronghold and attract followers, created that impression, and 3.x came right out and said that fighters are often party leaders, even if they're not at all qualified to be the party 'face.'&nbsp; Yet, D&amp;D has never made the fighter a good leader, or even a leader at all, in any sense (even 4e, which gave the fighter more 'nice things' than any other edition, passed the 'leader' schtick to the Warlord). There's just a lot of disconnects among D&amp;D mechanics, D&amp;D traditions, and the broader genre of fantasy (film/fiction/literature/myth/legend) that inspired it.&nbsp; And, non-casters in general and fighters in particular tend to fall through the cracks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6641629, member: 996"] "Improvised" is putting a nice spin on it, but, yes, in the olden days if you wanted to do much of anything other than hit things, use a special ability, or cast spells, you were prettymuch going to have to talk the DM into it, somehow. I've been running 5e, myself, not playing it. I do wonder, sometimes, why players choose the classes they do, when it seems like they'd really have more fun with something else. The Fighter does seem like the only option for certain archetypes. Your basic fantasy hero is probably going to be a fighter. If you're not casting spells, and not a Conan-clone barbarian, but still tough in a fight, that's about what's left. Thing is, your typical hero, even if he doesn't cast spells or have some sort of supernatural powers or mcguffin, tends to be really good at anything he turns his hand to. He won't just be tough in a fight, he'll be rallying the people, sneaking into heavily guarded dungeons to rescue the princess, scouting about in the woods, retrieving an artifact from a fiendishly trap-infested tomb, and so forth. So taking Fighter is just setting yourself up for disappointment. (Taking rogue will get you the ability to do some of those things, but you won't be tough in a fight, anymore, needing to be a sneaky back-stabber, instead - not too heroic.) D&D also has an odd history of painting the fighter as a natural leader. 1e, with it's level titles drawn from military and noble rank, topping out at 'Lord,' and letting the fighter build a stronghold and attract followers, created that impression, and 3.x came right out and said that fighters are often party leaders, even if they're not at all qualified to be the party 'face.' Yet, D&D has never made the fighter a good leader, or even a leader at all, in any sense (even 4e, which gave the fighter more 'nice things' than any other edition, passed the 'leader' schtick to the Warlord). There's just a lot of disconnects among D&D mechanics, D&D traditions, and the broader genre of fantasy (film/fiction/literature/myth/legend) that inspired it. And, non-casters in general and fighters in particular tend to fall through the cracks. [/QUOTE]

Verification