Quote from: Bill;7384941) Do you find them to be boring?

No.

Quote from: Bill;7384942) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

There are some feats that I do think add to the enjoyment I receive from playing fighters (e.g. Power Attack in 3.x).

Quote from: Bill;7384943) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

Yes.

Quote from: Bill;7384944) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

I think some people label the fighters boring because they lack mechanical options. In 3.x, at least, the people who criticize fighters tend to accept barbarians, rogues, and warblades; so I am not sure that it is an issue of preferring casters.

Quote from: Bill;7384945) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Haven't played it.

Quote from: Bill;7384946) Sex or icecream?

Both.

1) No.

2) They make them more tedious. So, no.

3) No. Fighters are fine as they kick ass in combat mechanically. The issue is that when creating mechanical options for other classes, many RPGs do not respect the combat ability and robustness of the Fighter.

4) Some people label them as boring as they lack mechanical options, which is traditionally the reserve of spellcasters. So, its less about preference and more about comparison.

5) Yes

6) Sex.

Quote from: Skywalker;7385331) No.

2) They make them more tedious. So, yes.

3) Fighters are fine as they kick ass. The only issue is that when creating mechanical options for other classes, the combat ability and robustness of the Fighter is often not preserved.

4) Some people label them as boring as they lack mechanical options.

5) Yes

6) Sex.

Just curious, what do you find that makes the 5E fighter boring while others are not, and regarding #2, being tedious means they are not as boring?

Quote from: Arminius;738524Ages and ages ago, I decided what was interesting about a character isn't what you are, it's who you are.

For me, what's most interesting is what you do. The play's the thing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738535Just curious, what do you find that makes the 5E fighter boring while others are not, and regarding #2, being tedious means they are not as boring?

I like my fighters to be 'old school' pulp action heroes. I am not a fan of adding mechanical options as it tends to be tedious and interferes with my preferred style of just jumping in and racking up the damage. I especially dislike the imposed specialisation of Fighters in 5e as I think they should be capable of picking up any weapon and kicking ass with it. This is central to their appeal to me as a player: they are easy to play with little restriction.

On saying that I find 5e fighters are better than 3e ones, but I still like them less than 1e fighters.

Oh and re: #2 I missed the "less", so it should be "no" Edited.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738516Fuck no.

This!

Not boring at all.
Actually my class of choice if playing an OSR-type game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;7384951) There are no boring fighters, only boring players.

I am so glad this was the first response.

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

1) Do you find them to be boring?

No

Quote2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

I wouldn't say they make them less boring, but it is a different experience. Sometimes i like feats, sometimes i don't.

Quote3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

I am not sure i quite understand this one. I think fighters are a solid melee class, with good hp and attacks. The mechanics still matter, i just dont need fighters to be outfitted like wizards. But i do think what you are doing in character matters.

Quote4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

Not sure. I think people honestly have different expectations and some folks feeel the fighter eighter doesn't have enough buttons or their baseline attacks and damage are not high enough. I think if you want more buttons, a different game is probably called for. There are plenty of games with maneuvers and abilities for the fighter that are cool but still firmly mundane. but if you just dont like the baseline attack/damage, you can just beef those up as a houserule.

Quote5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

No idea.

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, but a few little tricks called out in the rules to get your neurons firing is always a good idea.

2) Depends. A few simple ones yes, but when you start restricting the kinds of maneuvers a fighter is capable of without them, it necessarily makes them more boring. Feats should enhance what you can already do.

3) No, but remembering that helps.

4) Probably.

5) I haven't actually played 5e since the first playtest, but I had fun with it then.

6) How kinky and what flavor?

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?

i) Fighters are not boring of course not. However, there is a risk that in some games the fighter is relegated to the driver of their equipment.
I have used the example of Captain America and Iron Man before and its apt in this situation as well.
First off both charcters are interesting, no doubt about it.
Second of all Captain America is a much more skilled fighter than iron man.
However, Iron man has a suit that renders Captain America's combat skill if not redundant certainly marginalised.
the key to resolve this is for Captain America to "play the quarterback" and in effect treat Iron Man as one of his weapons.
So in D&D, whch of course is where generic questions on the board always end up, a fighter can be a great character but the game can get to a point where unless the fighter has magic armour, magic shield, magic sword they can not actively participate directly in play at which point the actual fighter could be replaced with someone else just like you can replace iron man with War Machine.
So at that point the fighter should be dictating the tactics of the team using the wizard as a weapon.

2) Feats don't make the fighter less boring although they may allow them to participate more fully without lots of equipment at higher levels.
Personally I would prefer unique powers evolved from play, imbuing high level fighters with a mythic quality.

3) Yes this is what redeems all classes. its's called roleplaying .....

4) No people label then boring because they find them boring. Taste is just a thing. Some people find micromanaagement of resources like spellcasters in AD&D boring (see commnest above round bookkepping and spellcasting). A problme with D&D from the outset has been the proliferation of classes with mechanically unique stuff about them because a lot of people like to have a special mechanical thing they can do, be it monks catching arrows, paladins healing wounds, rangers getting increased damage vs special opponents, or assassin's getting to one-shot kill things. This desire for mechanical advantage has only proliferated as the game has forked.

5) No.

6) Depends, I do like a nice honeycomb and vanilla with a little maple syrup but I also like Bangkok...

Quote from: Skywalker;738539I especially dislike the imposed specialisation of Fighters in 5e as I think they should be capable of picking up any weapon and kicking ass with it. This is central to their appeal to me as a player: they are easy to play with little restriction.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit?


As others have said, it's the player, not the character, that is usually boring.  however, I can't help but notice a trend of the fighter that seems to correlate with how a lot of people complain about how they are boring

1. Fighters were just that: your front line troops.  Best AC and best weapon damage output.  
2. People complained how every other class wasn't regularly doing as much damage as the fighter for every encounter
3. Every other class was bumped up for their damage capability, and also had all these extra powers (spells, thief skills, etc)
4. Suddenly the fighter is boring because he doesn't have all these
5. People demand the fighter get all new powers.


Really, the answer IMO is that all the other classes shouldn't have had their combat capability increased to match the fighter on every encounter, and you wouldn't have created the problem of a boring fighter to begin with, and therefore wouldn't feel the need to give the mundane archetypical warrior superhuman powers

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738631Really, the answer IMO is that all the other classes shouldn't have had their combat capability increased to match the fighter on every encounter, and you wouldn't have created the problem of a boring fighter to begin with, and therefore wouldn't feel the need to give the mundane archetypical warrior superhuman powers

It started off with people complaining that the magic user started weak and then got powerful much later. Then there were the complaints that the fighter was strong at the start and then weak compared to the MU later.

The thief and the cleric rarely heard complaints about them other than the occasional person bitching that their fighter should be able to do all the stuff the thief can or somesuch of the week.

I'll concur with Arminius and Jibbajibba.

D&D fighters can seem simplistic and I wish the game offered ways to differentiate and modify them. Making different classes helped but was an incomplete solution. Personally I like point-buy systems such as GURPS and Hero where you can add things such as Combat Reflexes or a bonus dedicated to removing hit location penalties. Just something to make them mechanically different.

Oh, and ice cream, vanilla usually.

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?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738631Would you mind expanding on this a bit?


As others have said, it's the player, not the character, that is usually boring.  however, I can't help but notice a trend of the fighter that seems to correlate with how a lot of people complain about how they are boring

1. Fighters were just that: your front line troops.  Best AC and best weapon damage output.  
2. People complained how every other class wasn't regularly doing as much damage as the fighter for every encounter
3. Every other class was bumped up for their damage capability, and also had all these extra powers (spells, thief skills, etc)
4. Suddenly the fighter is boring because he doesn't have all these
5. People demand the fighter get all new powers.


Really, the answer IMO is that all the other classes shouldn't have had their combat capability increased to match the fighter on every encounter, and you wouldn't have created the problem of a boring fighter to begin with, and therefore wouldn't feel the need to give the mundane archetypical warrior superhuman powers

I don't think "does the most damge and has the most HP" means a class isn't boring.
You are conflating powerful with interesting which is a false position I think.

I might have 1,000 HOP so I can never be killed and I might be able to auto hit twice per round for guarenteed 25 points of damage. Very powerful but incredibly boring to play.

When people say boring they are generally talking about a lack of options not a lack of power. This is mostly about GM style and player engagement.

Amber on paper has the most boring combat system ever. Highest Warfare wins. However, with a good GM and an engaged player if can be fully immersive.