(1) I don't think Fighters are boring, but it's hard to claim they're as-or-more interesting as spellcasters to most players.  A small handful might find spellcasters more boring (as a few have suggested) but most people find spellcasters more interesting just because there's such a wider array of weird and interesting things they can do.

(2) Feats are a possibly-misguided way of attempting to remedy this fact, and I think they succeed but also open such a can of worms of design and gameplay issues that it's questionable whether the trade-off is worth it.

(3) I'd much rather that later editions of D&D emphasized the Fighter's leadership/strategic capabilities at the domain-management level, but in general 3rd onwards has marginalized domain-level play almost completely.

(4) Yes.

(5) Not sure, but probably fine.

(6) Can I choose sex and creme brulee?

Quote from: LibraryLass;738610How kinky and what flavor?

Quote from: Saladman;738650Man, give me an old-school D&D fighter with an average or better charisma for reaction checks and hirelings and I will run the table.  So no, not only not boring, but to me the most interesting class.

I like the cut of your jib.

Quote from: The Butcher;738700If you can't make a Fighter interesting, you probably suck at gaming. Don't even think of playing WFRP or Traveller.

There's truth in this.

No, Fighters aren't boring.

On the rare occasions I get to play rather than GM (or, more frequently, when I pop in a D&Desque video game) , I play fighters. While I like tactical combat, I personally find too many "moving parts" stupefying and ultimately redundant.

As others have said, how interesting the fighter is does depend on the player, but also the GM. A lot of modern GMs aren't comfortable with the improvisational rulings necessary for the fighter to really shine in pre-3e D&D. I feel that many of the 3e feats and 4e at-will powers were ultimately designed to codify common improv-rulings and thereby increase their likelihood of showing up across groups.

For those reasons and for my money, the most consistently satisfying fighter experience was delivered by 4e Essentials's Knight and Slayer classes. This is not a knock on previous editions (which I will play or run willingly), just a reflection of certain local circumstances.

Quote from: Omega;738671er... AD&D fighters started off only knowing 4 different weapons...

Yet another reason why I prefer OD&D where a fighter is a master of all weapons and can use whatever is available that is best for the situation at hand without being penalized for it.

I never understood the desire for incompetence in entire classes of weapons as a feature of heroic warrior types all for the sake of providing mechanical difference.

So a wizard gets to be different by choosing different spells and a fighter gets to be different by enforcing selective incompetence? No thanks, I can provide the differences for my character.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738748Yet another reason why I prefer OD&D where a fighter is a master of all weapons and can use whatever is available that is best for the situation at hand without being penalized for it.

I never understood the desire for incompetence in entire classes of weapons as a feature of heroic warrior types all for the sake of providing mechanical difference.

So a wizard gets to be different by choosing different spells and a fighter gets to be different by enforcing selective incompetence? No thanks, I can provide the differences for my character.

I think its supposed to simulate the opposite. That Warriors tend to specialize with certain weapons or weapon styles.
the truth is that weapons have very different styles and techniques. The differences between a cutlass and broadsword are pronounced the differences between a trident and a long bow are unsurprisingly immense.....

Weapon Proficiency and Non-Weapon Proficiency is an entirely optional chapter in AD&D 2e. As core your class start out proficient in all the weapons they are allowed. Fighters are allowed all weapons. Perhaps AD&D 1e had a restriction I don't remember, but...
:idunno:

(I think WP/NWP was mostly for wizards ever so desperate to wield a sword like Gandalf. Though the Complete Handbook: Fighter is made of right goodness, and makes it more entertaining.)

Quote from: Skywalker;738698I don't have the playtest document on me, but the latest version had mandatory martial styles which show a focus on a type of weapon or fighting style.

"Focus" is a pretty strong word for a small bonus that you choose once and never have to worry about, and doesn't lock you into any one weapon or kind of weapon.  Particularly if you choose the Defense or Protection options, which don't require any specialization of any armor or weapons at all.

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) Yes.  Where the B/X, AD&D1, and AD&D2 versions are concerned, they basically don't even require a player once combat starts.  They just need an automatic die roller and someone to announce that they whiffed.  Doing anything interesting with a fighter in older D&D requires a lot of "mother may I?" style play because they mechanically have no options.

Outside of combat, they're fine and the same as any other character.  But their mechanical niche within the game is lackluster and uninteresting.

2) I don't think so.  They just turn it from a one trick pony into a different one trick pony.

3) I suppose that's true if you want to play a fighter who never fights, or you play a fighter because you find combat uninteresting.

4) Basically all the mechanical fun of older editions is in the spellcasters.  They're the only ones that really have any choice during the mechanics of combat, and that only happens after about a year of playing them as extremely limited use magic items.

5) Don't know.  Don't care.

6) Sex.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738752I think its supposed to simulate the opposite. That Warriors tend to specialize with certain weapons or weapon styles.
the truth is that weapons have very different styles and techniques. The differences between a cutlass and broadsword are pronounced the differences between a trident and a long bow are unsurprisingly immense.....

Of course they do. I'm talking about abstract systems such as D&D. In a game without classes, that feature separate weapon skills the issue takes care of itself. A character is skilled in whatever weapon skills he/she invests in.

D&D classes are archetypes. The fighter is the classic weapons master. It makes sense that this is the one class that is just generally skilled with any type of weapon.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738759Of course they do. I'm talking about abstract systems such as D&D. In a game without classes, that feature separate weapon skills the issue takes care of itself. A character is skilled in whatever weapon skills he/she invests in.

D&D classes are archetypes. The fighter is the classic weapons master. It makes sense that this is the one class that is just generally skilled with any type of weapon.

As you wish.
That doesn't suit my style of play I like bowmen and fencers and knights and sell swords and barbarians wielding axes and etc etc etc

I also don't think "the classic weapons master" is actually a thing. Its a common trope in fantasy novels for the mighty hero to get bested by the new guy with the bolas, boomerang, double handed sword, etc etc before he goes away learns it and due to his natural prowess (ie levels ) beats the other guy with his own weapon. I think this is a much more "classic" feature of the genre.

However, all said and done as has been pointed out the weapon proficiency sub-system can easily be removed entirely for minimal effort. Or just do that for fighters to give them a boon.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738765As you wish.
That doesn't suit my style of play I like bowmen and fencers and knights and sell swords and barbarians wielding axes and etc etc etc

I do as well when playing a simulationist system that supports them. When itching for tactical combat I go straight for GURPS. Beyond weapon skills, the maneuvers and effects in GURPS Martial Arts are awesome and cover the whole spectrum between gritty and full on cinematic.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738765I also don't think "the classic weapons master" is actually a thing. Its a common trope in fantasy novels for the mighty hero to get bested by the new guy with the bolas, boomerang, double handed sword, etc etc before he goes away learns it and due to his natural prowess (ie levels ) beats the other guy with his own weapon. I think this is a much more "classic" feature of the genre.

However, all said and done as has been pointed out the weapon proficiency sub-system can easily be removed entirely for minimal effort. Or just do that for fighters to give them a boon.

My preferred D&D has 3 adventuring archetypes:

Weapons guy.

Wizard guy.

Holy guy.

Pretty broad strokes. Weapons guy has a lot of ground to cover and there are so many different character possibilities in there without introducing mechanical restrictions.

Quote from: Gabriel2;738758Where the B/X, AD&D1, and AD&D2 versions are concerned, they basically don't even require a player once combat starts.  They just need an automatic die roller and someone to announce that they whiffed.  Doing anything interesting with a fighter in older D&D requires a lot of "mother may I?" style play because they mechanically have no options.

:rotfl: