The Gaming Den

I thinks it's time we got down to brass tacks and recognized that the Fighter is not an appropriate D&D class. D&D is a fantasy game and there is no in-genre support for anything resembling a fighter class past level 4 and no precedent for anything resembling a level 11 or higher fighter in anything ever.

So how do we kill the idea that the Fighter belongs in D&D, because having a fighter class that actually works is impossible.

Having characters who have swords is not unworkable, though the "Fighter" of course is. The first part is to get rid of classes that have such a weak concept, "fighter" simply can't appear on the class list even though "Paladin", "Ranger", and even "Berserker" totally can. The second part is to give out high level craziness that is comparable for the Berserker and the Conjurer. So the Conjurer summons a demon, the Berserker transforms into a Devil Bear, and life goes on.

The alternate option would be to harshly tier classes. I don't much care if someone plays a few levels as a "Fighter" if they level up and start taking levels of Storm Lord or Angel Knight.

-Username17

You also have to get rid of the Rogue, because "having skills" should not be a role protected shtick. That's something every sword character is going to need to do.

We stop obsessing over what the grognards think. We stop treating their disapproval as some kind of volcano to which we need to throw nerds into. If we don't shove it in the readers' face and just coincidentally make any and every 'fighter' a cool weeabo or Thor expy, the average player seriously won't notice nor even fuss about it.

the problem i see with classes named fighter, barbarian or rogue is, that their names don't actually tell you what they do and what their schtick is, and that anybody can be one even if they only have levels in other classes (a barbarian shaman, for instance). best example for why barbarian, fighter and rogue suck as classes is, of course, conan. ranger works only because of lotr and thus, only in a medieval fantasy game. ok... ranger also works in a modern army setting. the point is, it's pretty clear what a ranger is and what he does. a fighter is fuckin generic. you could only be a fighter and call yourself a ranger or only take levels in rogue and call yourself a ranger (multiclass, too of course).

it's hard to make every class name as distinctive as druid or bard, but everybody can fight and everybody can be a rogue, but not everybody can become better at fighting by running amok and not everybody can hide in plain sight without anything to hide behind. it comes down to generic versus distinctive classes. if you use real classes then fuck the fighter, otherwise go with unearthed arcana's generic classes.

1: Fuck weapon specialisation. Painting oneself over further into a corner as you level up is the opposite of what should happen. Sword-guy might work at low levels, but it needs to become a rapid-fire laser-sword with grenade attachment and jet engines if you insist on letting people keep it. Or just use a bow.

2: Gods damnit, but removing hit points needs to matter. No matter what the better classes can do to a monster, removing hit points has to help along the way and has to happen in the end.

3: You know how superman can leap tall buildings so fast he goes back in time? Yes, that. Hulk and Superman and Thor are fighters. Throw hammer hard enough to get to Hades? Good.

4: Even the gods themselves need to be vulnerable to getting a sword in them if a Fighter is doing it. All of them, even the chief one. Nothing gets to be "immune", even if it becomes a little challenging to work your way to the sensitive spots on creatures as large as your whole planet. See also #3.

5: Just in general, being Mr Big-and-strong needs to work for the things that need to happen. Raising the dead? Go punch something hard enough and it happens.

6: No one gets better pets than you. Not only are you the best pet a better class can possibly have, but your pets are better than their pets too.

7: And if any of that's keyed to items or whatever, for the grognards, just make sure #5 is fulfilled and you can always run and jump far enough and punch something hard enough to get them.

What has to be recognized is that the fighter is an incomplete concept. By contrast, the paladin is a pretty strong concept, a crusading knight of justice and chivalry with all the trappings of the Knights of the Round Table and the Twelve Peers. Paladin is the class you take if you want to play Sir Lancelot or Roland or King Arthur himself, or just your generic knight in shining armor. It is not clear what mythical characters embody the concept of "fighter". Which is fine, if you admit that the fighter is not a full class like the paladin, ranger, or berserker (the "barbarian" class can die in a fire) but a kit to create characters that don't fall into one of the other categories (maybe you don't have a samurai class, luckily the fighter is there). Which is kind of what the 3e fighter does, but feats are so meaningless in terms of actual concept while simultaneously providing sufficient bonuses to such narrow circumstances that you end up with "the character who is really good at swinging a sword" or "the character that is really good at tripping" or even "the character that is really good at charging, specifically with one weapon and only when riding a Pegasus". Which, even if they worked mechanically, aren't character concepts on the same level as "a knight errant who sallies forth to right all wrongs" or "legendary warrior who channels primal spirits to destroy his foes" or even "guy who is friends with animals".

The only comparable (not homebrewed) D&D class I know of is the sorcerer. Depending on spell selection you can make a wide variety of different spellcasters out of the one class. They don't get the respect they deserve because wizards and codzilla basically encompass every possible sorcerer but in one class, though I'd say it was the prepared spellcasters that were designed poorly. I suppose the martial adepts were the closest that WotC came to this idea, but there are too few (really different) options with too many traps for it to work like I've described.

There are a lot of good ways to do this, but they would rankle grognards. If you didn't want to rankle them, for whatever reason then you have to trick them into being something usable. Have classes promote to better classes at level 6, the only options for a Fighter would be Temple Knight (Divine), Eldritch Knight (Arcane), Kensai(Wuxia). The grognards will be forced to pick the one that seems the least magical, as long as you give it a boat load of Charles Atlas superpowers it should work out.

I think we've hit on most of the basic points here, but let's summarize:

0) The Classical Fighter needs to go.

Assuming that D&D is going to continue to use classes, a single class dedicated to just...fighting...isn't really applicable in the same way that no one class covers magic or healing or what-have-you. So while you might have a low-level "Guard" class or something for the Town Watch NPCs, generic shit like "Fighter" and "Warrior" are right the fuck out.

1) Everybody needs to be able to swing a sword.

No class can hold a monopoly on weapons. Everyone gets an equal opportunity to stab, even though some may stab better and harder than others. Fighter-classes like Berseker, Ranger, Paladin, &c. specialize in certain types or kinds of stabbing, but can be built to fulfill different combat roles or engage in different types of combat.

2) If it bleeds, it dies.

Knife in the eye needs to be a legitimate tactic at pretty much all levels. For fighter-types to remain relative, there needs to be either a way to overcome stuff like damage reduction or a way to deal proportional damage as other classes of the same level. This doesn't necessarily mean that the wizard suddenly loses meteor swarm, but a dwarf with an axe should have a reasonable chance of hitting the dragon with a decapitating strike. Ideally you'd want to preserve different combat roles.

3) Fighter-types need nice things too.

If wizards and sorcerers can swing a sword, then fighter-types can muddle with magic, pick pockets, &c. Ideally, you'd want many nice things and a way to choose between them; the Hexblade/Duskblade/Eldritch Knight concept is just one way to do it. You can be a Telekinetic Archer or the Flaming Iron Fist or what-have-you, but you need to have abilities commensurate with others, and you need to be able to make choices and take character options that are measurably important.

Lord Mistborn wrote:I thinks it's time we got down to brass tacks and recognized that the Fighter is not an appropriate D&D class. D&D is a fantasy game and there is no in-genre support for anything resembling a fighter class past level 4 and no precedent for anything resembling a level 11 or higher fighter in anything ever.

So how do we kill the idea that the Fighter belongs in D&D, because having a fighter class that actually works is impossible.

Getting rid of fighters...

• ...on your D&D game: "hey guys, I want to start a 3.x campaign. Here's the list of banned classes (fighter included)".
• ...on your fantasy heartbreaker: write book, don't have a class like the fighter on it. Apply Frank's suggestions to achieve this.
• ...in general: can't be done. Other people just like them and some don't even realize Fighters are a problem.

I hope this helps, have a nice day!

Ancient History wrote:1) Everybody needs to be able to swing a sword.

No class can hold a monopoly on weapons. Everyone gets an equal opportunity to stab, even though some may stab better and harder than others. Fighter-classes like Berseker, Ranger, Paladin, &c. specialize in certain types or kinds of stabbing, but can be built to fulfill different combat roles or engage in different types of combat.

This entire paragraph is meaningless jibber jabber.

Everybody needs to be able to use weapons, but some people will be good at it and others will not. Great, so the people who are bad at it will never do it.

Rangers need to specialize in certain types of weapon combat, but can be used to fight in other styles too. So... it doesn't matter what class you are, or it does and Ranger suck at THWP Fighting, so it doesn't matter if they can do it, because not being level appropriate is not level appropriate.

If your solution was incorporated into 3e 13 years ago, you don't need to list it as a point. If you mean something that wasn't in 3e, you should realize that you didn't say it.

Lord Mistborn wrote:I thinks it's time we got down to brass tacks and recognized that the Fighter is not an appropriate D&D class.

Attacking this from another angle, what the fuck is a fighter? Seriously, name a legendary hero who you can say with a straight face has the "fighter" class. The following

D&D is a fantasy game and there is no in-genre support for anything resembling a fighter class past level 4 and no precedent for anything resembling a level 11 or higher fighter in anything ever.

presupposes a certain conception of what a fighter is. But based on the name alone, all I can discern is that he's a guy who fights. Ignoring for a second that wizards and druids fit that definition, how is Roland not above 4th level? Oh right, he is but because they already have a "paladin" class he's not a "fighter". How is Kenshiro not 11th level? Oh right, he's also not a fighter, he's a "monk" (though obviously not the one in the PHB).

So how do we kill the idea that the Fighter belongs in D&D, because having a fighter class that actually works is impossible.

So the first thing you have to recognize is that in D&D, fighter is literally the leftover shit the other classes didn't want. It isn't a concept so much as an anti-concept, defined not by what it can do but by what it can't.

Mad Mordigan

sabs wrote:Mad Mordigan

?

Drolyt wrote:

sabs wrote:Mad Mordigan

?

The Hero from Willow.
He's very much a 'fighter' he's basically an adventurer man at arms with soldiering skills.

sabs wrote:Mad Mordigan

Samurai Jack, Legolas & Gimli (and somewhat over lvl 7, Feanor(?) & Glorfindel). From mangas, One Piece's Zoro.

Now, if you want to resolve Samurai Jack and Zoro with a Samurai class that taps the Asian power source to achieve Asian feats of excellence, that's fine. As for Legolas and Glorfindel, they could have levels in Demigod, for all the elf cock Tolkien sucked. And Gimli is comic relief.

sabs wrote:

Drolyt wrote:

sabs wrote:Mad Mordigan

?

The Hero from Willow.
He's very much a 'fighter' he's basically an adventurer man at arms with soldiering skills.

Madmartigan. It has been a long time since I've seen it, but I seem to recall him having too many skill points to be a D&D fighter. But again, you are treating "fighter" as if it meant "sellsword". "Fighter" means nothing.

Actually, it's "Madmartigan". Also, he's a Thief. Not just that he literally has a Thief's class skills, but that he is literally a thief and begins the adventure imprisoned for thievery.

Which goes down to perhaps the most fundamental problem with the Fighter concept: heroes in stories that are "warriors" do most of their heroics with sneaking, scouting, and stealth-killing guards in order to get to final showdowns. And in D&D, those are Rogue skills!

-Username17

Madmartigan was also more of a deuteragonist/sidekick than the big damn hero. He makes contributions, has sufficient plot armor to bag the Big Bad's cute daughter rather than get sworded by her, but he has no magic swag and his saving throw bonuses are low enough that he got pigged alongside all the cohorts. I like Val Kilmer, but he wasn't rocking a very high level concept and being the toughest Sword Guy/Skill Monkey in that film means that ultimately you still get upstaged by what amounts to a rather low level halfing bard.

nockermensch wrote:

sabs wrote:Mad Mordigan

Samurai Jack, Legolas & Gimli (and somewhat over lvl 7, Feanor(?) & Glorfindel). From mangas, One Piece's Zoro.

Now, if you want to resolve Samurai Jack and Zoro with a Samurai class that taps the Asian power source to achieve Asian feats of excellence, that's fine. As for Legolas and Glorfindel, they could have levels in Demigod, for all the elf cock Tolkien sucked. And Gimli is comic relief.

Samurai Jack belongs to a samurai class that looks nothing like the one in Complete Warrior. Legolas is a ranger, he just traded out some of the stuff D&D rangers get for alternative class features (seriously, not every "ranger" in the multiverse needs a pet wolf, but the class otherwise fits his abilities well). Gimli is... I'm not sure. High level elves are all gishes of some sort, although what exactly they can do with their magic is very vague. Zoro is obviously a pirate.

How many of these alleged Fighters are complete fucking planks at every other non-task than Climb, Jump, Ride and Intimidate?

How many of them lose their left testicle when they can't use their favorite trick with their favorite weapon?

If you want to name the heroes of movies who take on evil wizards and win (as opposed to Madmartigan, who loses), you want to bring up guys like Krull, Conan, or the Mathayus (from the Scorpion King). But and however, it's important to remember that those characters all spent a good deal of their time sneaking around, stealth killing guards, and bypassing traps. The Rogue skill set is seriously closer to the archetypical "sword hero" than the Fighter is. And that's before we get into the fact that those characters had what amounts to 4th level adventures for the most part.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:If you want to name the heroes of movies who take on evil wizards and win (as opposed to Madmartigan, who loses), you want to bring up guys like Krull, Conan, or the Mathayus (from the Scorpion King). But and however, it's important to remember that those characters all spent a good deal of their time sneaking around, stealth killing guards, and bypassing traps. The Rogue skill set is seriously closer to the archetypical "sword hero" than the Fighter is. And that's before we get into the fact that those characters had what amounts to 4th level adventures for the most part.

-Username17

Sneak attack also matches how they typically kill things, conceptually even if it doesn't bear out in the mechanics.

We all know the Fighter class as written is irrepairably broken. The question asked was to name a character in Fantasy who was a "Fighter". If you look at how fighters are portrayed in the D&D fiction (as opposed to the terribad rules) They're trying to emulate the Man at Arms. They do it badly, but there is plenty of Fantasy archtypes of I'm the Warrior. Gimli, Mad Martigan, Krull, Conan.

One of the first things I fix when I play D&D 3rd. is I give Fighters and Barbarians, the same skill progression as rogues. I also change their class sklls to be pretty much all physical skills. And even still, that's a low level concept. Gimli is awesome against Orcs, and the occasional Troll. But if a WraithKing shows up in front of him, he's done.

I'm the guy who is good at mundane combat.. is a stick that ends pretty early on. If you want a Warrior type who is going to be able to hang with the Wizards. You need a Paladin, or Tomas the Valheru. I shoot arrows, or I swing a sword isn't going to get you above level 5 very well.

Point of Order: Conan was a thief.