How do we get rid of the Fighter

[darkmaster]

Regardless of whether or not Kenpachi is an interesting character, his combat style is boring as shit

I would argue just the opposite actually. Part of Kenpachi's appeal is that he doesn't use a lot of big flashy magic/sword powers. The fact that just fucking cutting someone's head off is still the most efficient way for someone to kill another person when they're bad ass enough (thus proving that Soi Fong's shikai is fucking stupid and she should cry herself to sleep every night for being so useless) is an amazingly cool contrast to all the super magic swords n'd shit, which are interesting and cool in themselves.

Sure, but D&D rules as written give objects of any size obscene hit points.

Yeah... you'd have to have them ignore hardness, maybe give a scaling multiplier to damage to non-weilded or worn objects? You know, stuff that's not moving around.

[Drolyt]

Yeah, and why would the D&D fighter doing that be bad? I mean, that would be awesome! Flash step is just running really fast (that's literally what it is) and it's not really flight so much as running on the air which- yeah that's weird- but seriously call that shit hitting the air so hard with your feet that the back draft pushes you up and your golden. As for destruction, well, that just seems like the logical conclusion of being so strong you can run on the air.

I agree. I think I... I seriously thought when I came into 3.5... high level fighters were exactly like that. I was surprised to find out different, but that's one of the concepts I think I'd like more, than what we get.

I thought that too at first. If you really want this, one of the first things that needs to change is how damage scales. In D&D your ability to impact the environment barely increases as you increase damage. What you probably want is something like HERO, where every +1 to an objects body (hit points, roughly) means doubling its mass. (Body is much rarer than HP, so that isn't an exact translation).

[Midnight_v]

"fighter" sucks because "sneak" and "spellcaster" would suck as a classes, too. if there was a class which could do shit, you wouldn't call that class fighter if you have half a brain.

Zug. Its kinda irrelevant what we call it at this point. Seriously, man. Its a place holder, most of the time I'm saying it.
We could call it Elothar, or Kensai, or Warblade, Ranger, Warrior or Swordsman, I find that to be the least important part of all this. I acknowledge your dislike of the term. Still since were discussing it, lets not make this a sticking point anymore. I'm not tied to that name, like at all, but the semantics are useful here to keep us all in the same grounded conversation. Talking about "Mundane-ish, melee guy"

It does seem really cool what Droyt and Darkmaster are getting into, but I think its not going to stop people from hating on the concept.

Even if kenpachi reaches a level where he can tear a hole in the dimensions with his blade or swim into a pool of deep shadow to reach the negative energy plane... prepare for a shit storm of bitching from all sides. I personally am cool with that at this point.
My whole thing is people should play the concept they want... whenever.
Its funny, cause I kinda love the idea that's being put forth here.

He's just a badass (no explanation needed).

[Drolyt]

"fighter" sucks because "sneak" and "spellcaster" would suck as a classes, too. if there was a class which could do shit, you wouldn't call that class fighter if you have half a brain.

Zug. Its kinda irrelevant what we call it at this point. Seriously, man. Its a place holder, most of the time I'm saying it.
We could call it Elothar, or Kensai, or Warblade, Ranger, Warrior or Swordsman, I find that to be the least important part of all this. I acknowledge your dislike of the term. Still since were discussing it, lets not make this a sticking point anymore. I'm not tied to that name, like at all, but the semantics are useful here to keep us all in the same grounded conversation. Talking about "Mundane-ish, melee guy"

The issue isn't what you call it exactly. The issue is that when you say "fighter" most people have a conception built in of what that allows. A lot of people simply do not think that Kenpachi fits the conceptual space of the fighter. Most sane people won't object to paladins getting nice things because when you put "paladin" on your character sheet you are basically saying "I want to play Roland" and Roland did this trying to destroy his sword (that is seriously a gap in the rock larger than a football field that is found on the border between Spain and France). The problem with fighter is thus two-fold:

1. People have a very narrow conceptual space for the class. This is partially because "fighter" doesn't mean much (you know what a wizard or a paladin is without ever playing an RPG) and partially because that is what D&D, the most prominent RPG, supports.
2. Said conceptual space is not clearly defined and different people have different ideas. One part of the concept that is very common (but not universal) is the idea that fighters are "mundane". It is this mundaneness, more than any sword-swingyness, that causes problems with the concept of "fighter".

The solution? In my mind if fighter is to exist as a class at all, it should be a kit for people who's conception doesn't fit into more well defined classes. So Kenpachi could totally be a fighter, but so could Conan the Cimmerian or Sir Kay or Samurai Jack or whoever, assuming there wasn't a class you decided was better for those characters.

[Whipstitch]

Regardless of whether or not Kenpachi is an interesting character, his combat style is boring as shit

I would argue just the opposite actually. Part of Kenpachi's appeal is that he doesn't use a lot of big flashy magic/sword powers. The fact that just fucking cutting someone's head off is still the most efficient way for someone to kill another person when they're bad ass enough (thus proving that Soi Fong's shikai is fucking stupid and she should cry herself to sleep every night for being so useless) is an amazingly cool contrast to all the super magic swords n'd shit, which are interesting and cool in themselves.

The bit you cut off of Kaelik's post is actually fairly important in this case. Kenpachi doesn't have strategies or gambits, he just wins fights because he's the toughest fighter and therefore fights tougher. That sorta works in a visual, non-interactive medium with exceptionally low standards but for a ttrpg it is pretty far beyond shitty because it actually comes across as mundane anti-climax. It's funny when Indiana Jones shoots Expert Sword Dude, but it also hangs a lampshade on just how wide the gap between various concepts can really be. Further, don't you find it even just a li'l bit telling that the entire Kenpachi concept is sort of a weird meta-commentary on super powers in general? He is the exception that proves the rule, a character with a simplistic power set whose very existence highlights how useless it is for characters from different power tiers to interact with eachother. He is seriously interesting only insofar that he shits all over what everyone else is doing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The solution? In my mind if fighter is to exist as a class at all, it should be a kit for people who's conception doesn't fit into more well defined classes. So Kenpachi could totally be a fighter, but so could Conan the Cimmerian or Sir Kay or Samurai Jack or whoever, assuming there wasn't a class you decided was better for those characters.

Fuck that noise. DMFs are a cyst on the game's ass and should be excised.

[Drolyt]

The solution? In my mind if fighter is to exist as a class at all, it should be a kit for people who's conception doesn't fit into more well defined classes. So Kenpachi could totally be a fighter, but so could Conan the Cimmerian or Sir Kay or Samurai Jack or whoever, assuming there wasn't a class you decided was better for those characters.

Fuck that noise. DMFs are a cyst on the game's ass and should be excised.

Okay, the bit right before the part you quote? Where different people have different ideas of what a "fighter" is? You don't have to be a dumb melee fighter just because your character sheet has the word "fighter" written on it somewhere.

[nockermensch]

The solution? In my mind if fighter is to exist as a class at all, it should be a kit for people who's conception doesn't fit into more well defined classes. So Kenpachi could totally be a fighter, but so could Conan the Cimmerian or Sir Kay or Samurai Jack or whoever, assuming there wasn't a class you decided was better for those characters.

Fuck that noise. DMFs are a cyst on the game's ass and should be excised.

Yes, Lago. Now see how good that thread went.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You don't have to be a dumb melee fighter just because your character sheet has the word "fighter" written on it somewhere.

Having DMed and played in ton of games with newbies familiar with general fantasy nerd osmosis but not with 3E/4E D&D, I'm going to say that you're theoretically right but empirically wrong. The word 'fighter' really does set the tone for how people interact with the game, above and beyond the actual pitiful class abilities.

To see what I'm talking about, take a look at this thread here, specifically, the post at the top of this thread. Yeah, FrankTrollman's logic seems obvious to you, but my experience has made me believe that most people who play D&D are more like Kkat. That is, the idea that your class description, let alone class name, should not be the end-all of how you roleplay and rollplay is a novel and frightening observation to 90% of people who sling dice.

[nockermensch]

To see what I'm talking about, take a look at this thread here

(does that)
So Rich Burlew used to hang with you guys.

[Kaelik]

Okay, the bit right before the part you quote? Where different people have different ideas of what a "fighter" is? You don't have to be a dumb melee fighter just because your character sheet has the word "fighter" written on it somewhere.

No see, that is the point. People who take a class called fighter whine like little bitches when the class called fighter provides abilities that are not shitty fightering abilities. And they are right to. Because having a class, the largest definer of your abilities, be completely devoid of any flavor is shit, and so people impose the flavor of shit on that class. Because fighter is a class for people who fight, and if you want to do something out of combat you shouldn't have taken the fighter class.

Which is why step one is to light the fighter class on fire, and make sure that anything you ever make is not named fighter, and can be extrapolated to non-combat abilities.

[Drolyt]

To see what I'm talking about, take a look at this thread here

(does that)
So Rich Burlew used to hang with you guys.

This is also what I took from it. I mean, I get Lago's point, but what do we replace the fighter with? I mean, we have two generic spellcasters, wizard and sorcerer, who are defined almost solely by their spell selection, in addition to more specific spellcasters like cleric, druid, dread necromancer, beguiler, and so on. You need a generic martial character as a counterpart to that, because there are only so many classes you can make.

Okay, the bit right before the part you quote? Where different people have different ideas of what a "fighter" is? You don't have to be a dumb melee fighter just because your character sheet has the word "fighter" written on it somewhere.

No see, that is the point. People who take a class called fighter whine like little bitches when the class called fighter provides abilities that are not shitty fightering abilities. And they are right to. Because having a class, the largest definer of your abilities, be completely devoid of any flavor is shit, and so people impose the flavor of shit on that class. Because fighter is a class for people who fight, and if you want to do something out of combat you shouldn't have taken the fighter class.

Which is why step one is to light the fighter class on fire, and make sure that anything you ever make is not named fighter, and can be extrapolated to non-combat abilities.

What set of classes do you propose to cover every conceivable martial character?

[Kaelik]

What set of classes do you propose to cover every conceivable martial character?

The fighter doesn't, and can't, cover every conceivable martial character. It can only cover the ones it mechanically can represent. So whatever abilities you give to the fighter class, give those to a different class and call it anything else at all, so that I can add non combat abilities and make it not suck.

Literally just taking the name "fighter" and changing it to "Paladin" allows me to give out of combat abilities to a class without people rejecting it. And if instead of Paladin you want to call it "Ranger" or "Psychic Warrior" or "Storm Lord" or "Blood Warrior" or "Ninja" or "Arcanamach" or "Shinigami" or "Sacred Monkey Warrior" or "Vector Warrior" or "Butler" then whatever.

But literally every single combat ability you give to a fighter you could just give to a class called any one of those things, and then every single character that was represented by the Fighter class would also be represented by that class with a different name, but you could also give them non combat abilities without people throwing hissy fits.

[zugschef]

I mean, we have two generic spellcasters, wizard and sorcerer, who are defined almost solely by their spell selection, in addition to more specific spellcasters like cleric, druid, dread necromancer, beguiler, and so on.

their mechanics may be generic, but at least people have an image in their head when you're talking about a wizard (nerdy bookling in a dress and a pointy hat on his scalp). when you're talking about a spellcaster people don't. that's the same thing like talking about ranger or fighter. and on top of that you have the problem that spells can do anything and a pointy stick can't.

[nockermensch]

What set of classes do you propose to cover every conceivable martial character?

It obviously depends on the kind of campaigns you want to DM/play. An unwritten assumption behind Lago and kaelik's tirades is that everybody will want their high level campaigns to be about things like invading the forgotten, invisible castle that only existed in the dreams of a blind orphan who lived a thousand years ago, or to create a new religion (complete with a new god), or something else at this level.

So the actual answer here depends totally of what you consider "high-level". A lot of recent inspiration for fantasy campaigns is stuff like God of War or Bleach or Dragon Ball, where you just have harder and harder physical combat as the answer for *everything*. This actually means the adventures are all the low level "go to place X, beat monster Y" staple, re-skinned with harder and harder monsters. If this is your game, then a souped-up warblade is probably fine (and in this case you'd want to nerf the spellcasters).

If your concept of high level is more like a Grant Morrison or Jack Kirby comic, then you'll want your martial characters gaining some kind of supernatural, transcendant power source by around lvl 6. The "swordman" must become able to cut distance, time and abstract concepts. This supposing you want a world where everybody contributes equally to solving the plot. A lot of people are actually confortable with fighters becoming less and less important on the "moving the plot forward" department.

[Sigil]

I'm.... actually sort of confused. Didn't this already get, well, solved? I thought the F&K Tome Fighter did exactly what this thread sets out to discuss. It has an acceptable power level, has interesting an viable abilities, is fun to play, and does not go over into territory that would enrage grognards (well, I'm sure it enrages someone, everything enrages someone). I mean, yeah, it's still CALLED a fighter, but at this point "Fighter" is RPG jargon that everyone identifies with, and this one is actually a good representation of that concept.

Have I missed something here? If so, how?

[flare22]

ok fighters as a class is to vague what we really need is a class that will make the nay Sayers happy but not hold the rest of the party sword sages are nice but fighting styles and a small selection of secret moves are not enough. so why not just increase the effectiveness of fighting styles have the benefits granted scale with level and throw in a larger variety of super move with increases power. mages get spells and sword guy gets to yell secret technique and chop a dragon in half with a single blow or something. i hate to use anime as an example but this problem seems to solve itself if you make rogues more like Naruto ninja's and replace the fighter class with something like zoro from one piece and the barbarian with the hulk.

am i saying the same thing everyone else is if so sorry

[Whipstitch]

I'm.... actually sort of confused. Didn't this already get, well, solved? I thought the F&K Tome Fighter did exactly what this thread sets out to discuss.

Opinion varies on the tome melee classes. The tome Samurai, Barbarian and Fighter can all iajutsu, mash or thwart your face just fine. Some people even think that within their narrow focuses they are, if anything, overpowered. That's because Barbarians don't fail saves and both they and samurai can hit you for all of the damages. Meanwhile, fighters have a "Lol, no" ranged touch attack that lets them counter... stuff and can pick up enough feats that they just drown you in attack riders. So, yeah, in combat, they can stomp them some ass and there's actually some justification for casting some buff spells on the Tome Fighter rather than just sending more dire badgers into the breach. And in its way, I'll take that over the core Fighter. However, Tome Fighters still don't Scry or travel the Planes under their own power, and a fair number of denners think that is bad for the game if you just have classes whose whole purpose is to math people to death in lieu of having abilities that can solve non-combat problems.

[Mistborn]

Bleach or Dragon Ball

Naruto ninja's [] zoro from one piece [] the hulk.

Kenpachi

This mentelgen is why the fighter is not a valid fucking D&D class, because all of the examples you morons can think of for the high level fighter are out of genre for D&D.

[Sigil]

However, Tome Fighters still don't Scry or travel the Planes under their own power, and a fair number of denners think that is bad for the game if you just have classes whose whole purpose is to math people to death in lieu of having abilities that can solve non-combat problems.

This is true, and I will agree that it is low on utility. But the "lolno foil" and "suddenly, a feat" are actually fairly useful out of combat if used creatively (Foil specifically being able to stop, well, damn near anything immediately is pretty unique). And it does make them useful enough for those that can planar travel and scry to keep them around instead of trying to silently remove them from the party. But your point stands.

Do you think it possible to slightly alter the Tome Fighter (or similar classes) to address this threads issue (perhaps giving it some sort of ability to not only foil a spell/ability, but to steal the function of that spell and redirect it to themselves/an ally) or would this simply place them back into the "That's not a Fighter omgwtf" grognard territory?

[virgil]

This mentelgen is why the fighter is not a valid fucking D&D class, because all of the examples you morons can think of for the high level fighter are out of genre for D&D.

Good thing we have you as the stalwart defender of not only the proper way to play D&D, but the proper way to define D&D. Thank you, Lord Mistborn, for saving us from our own stupidity!

[nockermensch]

Bleach or Dragon Ball

Naruto ninja's [] zoro from one piece [] the hulk.

Kenpachi

This mentelgen is why the fighter is not a valid fucking D&D class, because all of the examples you morons can think of for the high level fighter are out of genre for D&D.

I keep wanting to mention Arjuna and his brothers, but then you'll say that Exalted is also out of genre for D&D.

If the "genre of D&D" is Forgotten Realms fiction and the such, then the fighters on it will reflect all the mechanical and conceptual fail that Fighting men got riddled with during D&D's less than fair story. If it's King Arthur / LotR / the Bible then nobody seems to be over 7th level in there and you'll of course lack actual high level examples of play.

[Kaelik]

However, Tome Fighters still don't Scry or travel the Planes under their own power, and a fair number of denners think that is bad for the game if you just have classes whose whole purpose is to math people to death in lieu of having abilities that can solve non-combat problems.

This is true, and I will agree that it is low on utility. But the "lolno foil" and "suddenly, a feat" are actually fairly useful out of combat if used creatively (Foil specifically being able to stop, well, damn near anything immediately is pretty unique). And it does make them useful enough for those that can planar travel and scry to keep them around instead of trying to silently remove them from the party. But your point stands.

Do you think it possible to slightly alter the Tome Fighter (or similar classes) to address this threads issue (perhaps giving it some sort of ability to not only foil a spell/ability, but to steal the function of that spell and redirect it to themselves/an ally) or would this simply place them back into the "That's not a Fighter omgwtf" grognard territory?

What the fuck? What sort of non combat situation is aided by foil? And no, arbitrary spell stealing is a terrible measure to give non combat utility, because basically never is the BBEG conveniently casting the exact utility spell you need out of combat within 60ft.

[Mistborn]

Good thing we have you as the stalwart defender of not only the proper way to play D&D, but the proper way to define D&D. Thank you, Lord Mistborn, for saving us from our own stupidity!

If the "genre of D&D" is Forgotten Realms fiction and the such, then the fighters on it will reflect all the mechanical and conceptual fail that Fighting men got riddled with during D&D's less than fair story. If it's King Arthur / LotR / the Bible then nobody seems to be over 7th level in there and you'll of course lack actual high level examples of play.

Both of you can eat a dick, you two know full well what the source material for D&D is.

[darkmaster]

Sorry, I'm confused, how exactly is feudal Japan (the place were kenpachi was introduced, yeah the soul society but it's fucking feudal Japan) but with magic and guys running around swording soul eating demons not in genre for a setting that is ostensibly about a world ruled by feudalism where there's magic and guys running around swording various monsters?