What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) There are no boring fighters, only boring players.

2) No

3)Yes

4) I wouldn't know

5)No

6) Sex WITH ice cream FTW!!

Only when they go on and on about how awesome they were before they took an arrow to the knee...

1) I don't find old school fighters boring at all. In fact, when I get to play as opposed to GM, I tend to play fighters because they are a lot of fun to play without a lot of bookwork. I try to avoid bookwork on the rare occasions I get to play as I have enough of record-keeping to do when I GM.

2) Feats (at least as done in WOTC D&D) tend to make fighters more boring, IMHO, by restricting what the character can do to the feats selected.

3) What a character (fighter or otherwise) does in the the campaign/setting is what makes them fun to play for me. Game mechanics just aren't what I'm interested in when I'm playing.

4) I know some people who consider any class that isn't one of their favorites boring, so I'm sure there are people who think fighters are boring because they prefer to play spell-casters (and vice-versa).

5) From what I've seen of 5e (the playtests), I would not call a 5e fighter boring.

6) Both, please.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) No.

2) No.

3) In part.

4) No.

5) No.

6) Sex.

If they're boring it's because you suck as a player

Quote from: Exploderwizard;7384956) Sex WITH ice cream FTW!!

Do you mean incorporating ice cream in your sex, or literally having sex with a bowl of ice cream?

Quote from: Technomancer;738505If they're boring it's because you suck as a player



Do you mean incorporating ice cream in your sex, or literally having sex with a bowl of ice cream?

Both!

I don't find them boring. They can get overshadowed, though, if the response to players who find MUs boring is to make life too much easier for MUs (so their zappy spells end up being consistently better at making things keel over than the fighters' blades).

The "old school" offers to my mind a best of two worlds:

1) When we prefer to get quickly to the results of a combat, we can do that.

2) On those occasions when we want to delve into the kinds of details "feats" and "powers" treat, we can do so more flexibly.

Of course not.

I'd be more interested in finding out whether architects, miners and artists are boring.

Quote from: Bill;738494Are old school fighters boring?

Fuck no.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) There are no boring characters, only boring players.
2) No.
3) See 1
4) Probably.  Spell casters bore me
5) I have no idea.
6) Both.

Ages and ages ago, I decided what was interesting about a character isn't what you are, it's who you are.

The again I also felt at some point that D&D characters (esp. fighters) weren't differentiated enough on their character sheets except by their equipment.

So I see both sides of the depressing but inevitable flamewar.

Personally I think part of the art of playing (including GMing) an RPG that should be taught is making "who you are" relevant even if it isn't mechanically represented in the game. So: keep track of past interactions with NPCs and intelligent monsters, and ensure they recur so that the PC has a place in the setting. This is apart from the possibility of having explicit reputation or social status mechanics. Also apart from any mechanic or GMing style that places emphasis on the PCs morality, allegiances, or whatever. Those can be nice but they can also be overdone.

At the same time I like some differentiation within the fighter concept and I'm not sure AD&D 1e/Greyhawk, or B/X or BECMI/RC do it enough or well enough to fully satisfy me. I'm sure this is one of the reasons for the proliferation of fighter-like classes as editions evolved (e.g. Barbarian, Cavalier). At minimum it might be nice to have some sort of cultural/socioeconomic packages such as specifying initial armor, weaponry, equipment (such as having a horse) and specializations for fighter (barbarian), fighter (knight or man at arms), fighter (mercenary), fighter (nomad), etc., without going into the mechanical detail in later editions or competing games.

Finally, though, I'm also attracted to the idea of PCs not being highly differentiated at the start of their careers, and nipping the special snowflake tendency in the bud. This would send a strong message that the important aspect of a character is what they do and what happens to them in play.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738516Fuck no.

I don't find them boring at all myself, but I have heard many people say they are.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1: While not my personal favorite. I do not find fighters boring. They are alot of fun for just wading in and going head to head without the need for alot of micromanagement of quirks. Swing sword-kill stuff.

2: No. It makes them more complex. More micromanagement. If I wanted that I'd play a caster.

3: The fighter is neat and simple. They are the least complex class to play hands down. They are usually easy for players to get into the right mindset for too. Swing sword-kill stuff.

4: I play casters extensively and I do not consider Fighters boring at all.

5: No. Different. Its got more complexity now. But alot of that is focused into chargen. They are still mostly Swing sword-kill stuff. But hard to say where the outlying backgrounds and such will lead yet till more is revealed.

6: Sexy icecream?

Quote from: Technomancer;738505Do you mean incorporating ice cream in your sex, or literally having sex with a bowl of ice cream?

Icecream elemental. How Candyland got populated...