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. 3e/Pathfinder feats yes. FantasyCraft/5e feats no.
3. No opinion.
4. No they just have no concept of spotlight balance.
5.  Not that I see.
6. Ice cream.

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

1) Do you find them to be boring?

Not at all.

Quote2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

Not at all.

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

Absolutely.

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

It may be so.

Quote5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Dunno.

Quote6) Sex or icecream?

Sex, always.

1) Do you find them to be boring?

No.  I often pick fighter most of the time.

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

Depends on the feat in question.  If it adds something new to the fighter, then no.  If not, then the answer is still no.  Mainly because the fighter is not boring even with a boring improvement.

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

Yes.  I see a lot of people treat fighter as a one hit machine.  Even in 3.5 I cringe when I see people playing as fighters only do one attack when they are capable of doing four attacks.  I even flat out tell them you can do other things as well like destroy swords with your sheer might, trip over a guy, and just about any thing other than one attack.

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

Yes.  I seen it happen a few times personally and given the growth spell casters have I can't really blame them.  They get a ton of options while none spell caster classes have limits.

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

No.  Though given the rules I seen for those that love feats there is plenty of fighter growth.  For those that don't like feats there is still plenty of fighter growth.

6) Sex or icecream?

Why not both?

Quote from: Doom;739433It's like mages basically get a +8 to hit (more than superior to the +1 per level BAB fighters get). Insult to injury, of course, is that Mage Armor does protect fully against touch attacks. Just not a shield (unless it's the Shield spell, in which case, yeah, it does, for some reason).

This is wrong actually, Shield and Mage Armor don't add to your touch AC. Since they are [force] effects their bonus applies against incorporeal creatures but they don't apply against regular touch attacks.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;739856This is wrong actually, Shield and Mage Armor don't add to your touch AC. Since they are [force] effects their bonus applies against incorporeal creatures but they don't apply against regular touch attacks.

Neat, I'll have to look that up. Thanks!

Quote from: gamerGoyf;739856This is wrong actually, Shield and Mage Armor don't add to your touch AC. Since they are [force] effects their bonus applies against incorporeal creatures but they don't apply against regular touch attacks.

That makes sense in that shield and mage armor are essentially the same as using a shield and wearing armor.

I do seem to recall a few gm's allowing shield or mage armor to count vs touch attacks, even if it is not raw.

So mage touch attacks are even better!

And their mage armor & shields resist ghosts! (sorry, incorporeal creatures.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;739914So mage touch attacks are even better!

And their mage armor & shields resist ghosts! (sorry, incorporeal creatures.)

mage armour is just a forcefield right.

So should a forcefield be able to contain ghosts and prevent touch attacks?

Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

Quote from: jibbajibba;739951Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

I just got a hard-on.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739951mage armour is just a forcefield right.

So should a forcefield be able to contain ghosts and prevent touch attacks?

Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

Depending on the writer. Yes. In her early appearances she could be stopped by a force field. But given time she might phase through those as well. Doom had her in a force field container when she was stuck intangible. Sooooo.

Probably yes Sue could contain Kitty. Shes also beaten up intangible villains.

So force contain them ghosts! And dont cross the beams.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739951mage armour is just a forcefield right.

So should a forcefield be able to contain ghosts and prevent touch attacks?

Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

Actually thinking on the superhero motiff doesn't Armour have a power that is really just fancy Mage armour with some oriental flavour thrown in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_(comics)



(as an aside I do get confused how the x-gene can not only give you physical, mental, or spirtual mutations but can also grant you power over the elements, ancient oriental monsters or let you use magic but hey confusing the issue )

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

Yep. Pre-3e fighters - hell, even 3e fighters, though for different reasons - lack mechanical differentiation.

Characters that happen to be fighters do not have to be boring, and if a character is boring, that's on the player. But the class in and of itself is incredibly dull and requires significant investment on part of the player to differentiate their character from other fighters.

Quote2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

They could, but the implementation of feats - to date - has been spotty and insufficient for significant differentiation. There are a number of "go-to" feats, and once an optimal path has been found, each fighter starts to look significantly similar, which reduces their ability to provide mechanical differentiation.

Feats are akin to pre-MoP WoW talents: while they look like they provide customization, they really don't, because there is generally a small subset of mechanically viable/optimal routes to take, and if you don't follow them, you are screwing yourself for no good reason. Also, the existence of feat traps (such as Toughness) and feat "taxes" implies that feat design in both 3e and 4e was relatively lackluster.

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

It depends entirely upon the player. Some people are fine without mechanical differentiation, and can find ways to make their characters unique and interesting; others prefer mechanical hooks to assist in this process, or use mechanics to provide context for the fluff and vice-versa; and some people simply enjoy having a lot of crunch, for which old-school fighters are just insufficient.

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

Possibly? I'm not those people, so I wouldn't know.

Quote5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Stopped paying attention to 5e quite awhile ago, so I have no idea.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740018Yep. Pre-3e fighters - hell, even 3e fighters, though for different reasons - lack mechanical differentiation.

Characters that happen to be fighters do not have to be boring, and if a character is boring, that's on the player. But the class in and of itself is incredibly dull and requires significant investment on part of the player to differentiate their character from other fighters.

Not much different from other classes. Casters have "go to" spells and abilities that end up producing pretty much the same character in a strict mechanical sense.

In a class based system, individuality really is up to the player. Mechanics by themselves are generally dull regardless of class. Its what a character actually does in relation with the setting that makes the game interesting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740038Not much different from other classes. Casters have "go to" spells and abilities that end up producing pretty much the same character in a strict mechanical sense.

I would not disagree with that assessment. In any system that offers multiple options, over time, one of those options will be typically be found to be optimal. Some systems, I imagine, can overcome that (and I hope to in my own game), but it is definitely a difficult thing to balance.

QuoteIn a class based system, individuality really is up to the player. Mechanics by themselves are generally dull regardless of class. Its what a character actually does in relation with the setting that makes the game interesting.

In the strictest sense, I will allow that. However I would contend that class-based systems that have options within those classes - such as the 3.5 ranger, with the option between melee and ranged - allow for greater variability between classes.

In addition, mechanical systems outside of classes, such as skills and feats, can lend greater customization and further differentiate members of the same class.

And obviously the progress of the game itself will differentiate between characters of the same class. Bob the fighter is not Joe the fighter, in terms of personality, history, etc. However, that does not mean jack to differentiation within the system, which is the only meaningful approach to this topic - otherwise, why have any classes or races at all, if differentiation made through gameplay trumps mechanical differentiation, then mechanical differences can be done away with. Yes, obviously hyperbolic, but that should illustrate my point that mechanical differentiation is still important.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740018But the class in and of itself is incredibly dull and requires significant investment on part of the player to differentiate their character from other fighters..

Round these parts, we call this significant investment "role-playing".