Post by Wizard on Feb 2, 2015 22:45:16 GMT -5
Fighters are a D&D class with a well-established history, all the way from OD&D, when he(yep) was called the "Fighting Man."
But of late, he's suffered something of an identity crisis.
In 3/3.5, the fighter had a high BAB, proficiency with arms and armor, and the easiest access to feats. But this ended up with fairly gimmicky tripping spiked-chain fighters. It was true that you didn't have to go this route---but if you were going for pure damage, a barbarian was just better.
In 4e, reminiscient of World of Warcraft, fighters were cast as Defenders and had all sorts of powers for protecting their allies or hindering their foes. This made them more tactically relevant, but they felt less like...fighters. Beowulf didn't walk around being a meat shield for his wizard buddy. And whatever he did, he could do it more than once a day.
5e has somewhat returned to 2e/3e roots with its fighter, which can be a Champion, a Battlemaster, or an Eldritch Knight. But going back to 2e/3e's roots has brought back 2e/3e's problems: namely, Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards. And players have noticed. Complaints: a 20th-level fighter feels like a 5th-level fighter, just with higher numbers.
The problem is, if you give a fighter some more fantastic powers---attacking everyone within 30 feet, for instance---it doesn't quite feel like a fighter. It's a neat ability related to combat, yes, but it's magical, whether labeled as such or not. You can't attack 168 people in five seconds with a hand weapon "mundanely." So now what we have is a sort of wu xia character, which is neat---but not a fighter.
So what is a fighter?
A fighter is pragmatic. A fighter does whatever it takes to win, stomping on the ideals of the other classes. A fighter may do something evil (anti-paladin), unnatural (anti-ranger/druid), inefficient (anti-monk), irreligious (anti-cleric), unfun (anti-bard), requiring the backing of a civilization (anti-barbarian), or requiring the help of others (anti-wizard/sorceror). In this he is like the other unprincipled class, the rogue, except that his aims (winning) are different than a rogue's (profiting).
So what does this pragmatism gain the fighter? The easiest way to find out is to see what sources of power the other classes disdain.
The wizard wants to win by being smart. The fighter is not afraid to win by being dumb. As such, he has a high Str score. He knows that dragons, ogres, and most creatures in the monster manual will have a higher strength score. He also knows that a Str score is not much help against an army. But he gets Str anyway.
Wizards are also famous for being solitary. Fighters are not afraid to get an army together. A wizard can do more damage in a battle than a fighter, true, but which is more common: a fighter with an army, or a wizard who can defeat an army?
The monk wants to win with personal enlightenment, with efficient movements, using his body to its maximum potential. The fighter is not afraid to be inefficient if it means he will win. The fighter will mount himself on a horse, then clad himself in unwieldy metal, slowing his reflexes and blocking his vision. Pound for pound, the monk is far superior. But who will win?
Rangers, druids, and barbarians eschew the constraints of civilization. Fighters willingly accept civilization, knowing that it gives them a)numbers and b)the things civilizations build, like castles, specialized arms and armor, and magical arms and armor.
The list so far: armies, mounts, magical arms and armor, fortifications.
It's through these things that fighters progress, not so much their level or feats or skills. Sometimes those things require fighting skill (armies might only be led by warriors, arms and armor require proficiency), but sometimes not.
A high-level fighter will be formidable because he has an awesome mount, or is Commander of the Felix Legions, or can effectively lead others, or has a dizzying array of magical arms and armor---not because he personally is extraordinarily powerful.
But of late, he's suffered something of an identity crisis.
In 3/3.5, the fighter had a high BAB, proficiency with arms and armor, and the easiest access to feats. But this ended up with fairly gimmicky tripping spiked-chain fighters. It was true that you didn't have to go this route---but if you were going for pure damage, a barbarian was just better.
In 4e, reminiscient of World of Warcraft, fighters were cast as Defenders and had all sorts of powers for protecting their allies or hindering their foes. This made them more tactically relevant, but they felt less like...fighters. Beowulf didn't walk around being a meat shield for his wizard buddy. And whatever he did, he could do it more than once a day.
5e has somewhat returned to 2e/3e roots with its fighter, which can be a Champion, a Battlemaster, or an Eldritch Knight. But going back to 2e/3e's roots has brought back 2e/3e's problems: namely, Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards. And players have noticed. Complaints: a 20th-level fighter feels like a 5th-level fighter, just with higher numbers.
The problem is, if you give a fighter some more fantastic powers---attacking everyone within 30 feet, for instance---it doesn't quite feel like a fighter. It's a neat ability related to combat, yes, but it's magical, whether labeled as such or not. You can't attack 168 people in five seconds with a hand weapon "mundanely." So now what we have is a sort of wu xia character, which is neat---but not a fighter.
So what is a fighter?
A fighter is pragmatic. A fighter does whatever it takes to win, stomping on the ideals of the other classes. A fighter may do something evil (anti-paladin), unnatural (anti-ranger/druid), inefficient (anti-monk), irreligious (anti-cleric), unfun (anti-bard), requiring the backing of a civilization (anti-barbarian), or requiring the help of others (anti-wizard/sorceror). In this he is like the other unprincipled class, the rogue, except that his aims (winning) are different than a rogue's (profiting).
So what does this pragmatism gain the fighter? The easiest way to find out is to see what sources of power the other classes disdain.
The wizard wants to win by being smart. The fighter is not afraid to win by being dumb. As such, he has a high Str score. He knows that dragons, ogres, and most creatures in the monster manual will have a higher strength score. He also knows that a Str score is not much help against an army. But he gets Str anyway.
Wizards are also famous for being solitary. Fighters are not afraid to get an army together. A wizard can do more damage in a battle than a fighter, true, but which is more common: a fighter with an army, or a wizard who can defeat an army?
The monk wants to win with personal enlightenment, with efficient movements, using his body to its maximum potential. The fighter is not afraid to be inefficient if it means he will win. The fighter will mount himself on a horse, then clad himself in unwieldy metal, slowing his reflexes and blocking his vision. Pound for pound, the monk is far superior. But who will win?
Rangers, druids, and barbarians eschew the constraints of civilization. Fighters willingly accept civilization, knowing that it gives them a)numbers and b)the things civilizations build, like castles, specialized arms and armor, and magical arms and armor.
The list so far: armies, mounts, magical arms and armor, fortifications.
It's through these things that fighters progress, not so much their level or feats or skills. Sometimes those things require fighting skill (armies might only be led by warriors, arms and armor require proficiency), but sometimes not.
A high-level fighter will be formidable because he has an awesome mount, or is Commander of the Felix Legions, or can effectively lead others, or has a dizzying array of magical arms and armor---not because he personally is extraordinarily powerful.