Quote from: Exploderwizard;738768My 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.

I've pretty much come around to this.  I'm still on the fence if there's room for a stealthy guy, but in any case I think the greatest freedom resides in three (or four) broad archetypes and as few mechanical character jewjaws as possible.  If there's a desire to have virtually everything about the character mechanically represented, go for something granular like GURPS.  The classic D&D method of creating progressively narrow "archetype" classes and giving them a variety of mechanical doodads is just clunky, muddy, and mostly unsatisfying.  Trying to shoehorn points, skills, and feats on these broad classes just gives you the hot mess that is 3e.

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.

Yes and no.  There are fighting styles that each fighter gets to select.  But they are not weapon specialization.  They are styles that reinforce an archetype: skirmisher/archer, tank, swashbuckler, etc.

this is what they actually are:

Archery: +1 bonus to attack rolls on any ranged weapon
Defense: +1 AC when wearing armor
Great Weapon: (this one Mearls already said he's pulling out)
Protection: use your reaction to impose disadvantage to someone attacking an ally within 5 feet of you
Two Weapon Fighting: apply your ability modifier to your off hand weapon

So there is no "weapon specialization" in 5e, really.  fighters can pick up any weapon and use it just as effectively as any other.  The closest is archery, and that includes all ranged weapons, not just bows.

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'm biased, because Fighter is my favorite class.

1) Depends on who's running the game

2) Yes and no. One the one hand, feats are toys to play with when leveling your character - on the other hand, feats often dictate what your character can't do as much as what they they can do.

3) Pretty much. The discussions about class balance often focuses ont he wrong part: damage output. The actual imbalance is one of agency. High level clerics and wizards get to essentially create their own epic adventures by using their daily spells to open gates to other planes. Fighters and rogues don't get to do that. That said, Rogues can rule a thieves guild and fighters get to command armies in classic D&D, so they actually got a lot more agency before 3E.

4) Fighters are bad in 3E. Just plain bad. By design. People who say that they are boring are probably coming from that ruleset. Fighters are perfectly fine in AD&D, they are fucking tits in RCD&D and 4E, and I think they are clumsily designed but serviceable in 5E.

5) No.

6) Mauve.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738777Great Weapon: (this one Mearls already said he's pulling out)

I thought this was still up for debate. Where did he say this?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;738790I thought this was still up for debate. Where did he say this?

I can't remember the exact location, but I know it was based on something like, "If one little minor rule is causing this much divide, then that's not what we want with next, and it won't be part of the core game."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738796I can't remember the exact location, but I know it was based on something like, "If one little minor rule is causing this much divide, then that's not what we want with next, and it won't be part of the core game."

That upsets me. Not because I'm particularly fond of the rule, but I don't like to see people who throw temper tantrums getting their way.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;738799That upsets me. Not because I'm particularly fond of the rule, but I don't like to see people who throw temper tantrums getting their way.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738748I 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.

Because swinging a long sword is different from swinging a bastard sword? A mace takes a different technique than an axe? Longbow or crossbow? A fresh off the militia level 1 fighter has had about how long to master anything? Not to mention the logistics of carrying four weapons around. And they can use any weapon they see if they are willing to take the -2 to hit penalty.

The proficiencies seem to represent the weapons the person has trained most with. Which makes sense.

Though personally I'd have granted the proficiencies a bonus and not had a non-proficiency penalty. And bump up everyones starting allotment by 1.

Such is.

When I did play a fighter, which was not often, I usually took broad sword and short bow. And usually rounded that out with hammer and dagger. Or if the GM allowed I'd just take proficiency in the first two and leave the other two blank and fill as the adventure progressed.

Others groups I've been in went at it differently. Such as not even using proficiencies at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738777There are fighting styles that each fighter gets to select.  

That's the ones (along with the Martial Paths). Thanks.

Quote from: Iosue;738755"Focus" is a pretty strong word for a small bonus that you choose once and never have to worry about...

I agree the mechanical effect is lighter than 3e's feats so its an improvement on that. But I still find it to be more tedious and mechanically defining than an earlier edition  fighter which has no such mechanics. So, my comment stands.

Quote from: Opaopajr;738753Weapon 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.)

I think a 1E fighter has a -2 to hit with all weapons he is not proficient with.

Essentially they can grab any weapon and use it. a -2 is not usually the kiss of death.

1) Do you find them to be boring?

In OD&D, I love them.

In AD&D, they are kinda sad compared to other classes. Unless you are a Dwarf Fighter and then you rock.

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

Feats suck, but I like special abilities.

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

That's the argument for the Hobo with a Shotgun in Rifts and the One Eyed Beggar in Stormbringer. And its true.

That said, its 2014 and what people expect from D&D is different than what we expected in 1974, 84 or 94.


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

Who the fuck knows why some people say stuff?

I think they're kinda boring in AD&D because standing next to the other  classes, Fighters don't have a defined niche anymore.

In OD&D, the Fighter is a badass. They don't have to compete with Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Barbarians or even Thieves as the Melee Combat Guru.

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Since 5e is not out yet, I will not debate 5e rules.

However, if the question is about the Playtest Fighter, then I can say having played a Fighter, the fighter is Meh.

Not as cool as my 4e Fighter, but probably an improvement on the AD&D Fighter in regards to how they stand up versus other the other, often equally meh classes.  

6) Sex or icecream?[/QUOTE]

Tonight?

Quote from: Skywalker;738816I agree the mechanical effect is lighter than 3e's feats so its an improvement on that. But I still find it to be more tedious and mechanically defining than an earlier edition  fighter which has no such mechanics. So, my comment stands.

Well, obviously I'm not going to fault you for how you feel.  You know yourself better than anyone and you know your preferences; it's certainly not my place to say they're wrong or anything.

but I will admit I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your comment about how you don't feel 5e fighters are good with everything.  They are.  They can pick up any weapon and have the same attack bonuses from weapon to weapon.  the only time this is different is if one fighter happens to have chosen to be a ranged fighter.  Whether or not a fighter picks up an axe, or a flail, or sword doesn't matter.  He's equally proficient in all.  And as far as martial paths go, the path of the warrior doesn't change any of that either.  He now hits a critical on a natural 19 or 20 instead of just 20, but again, that applies to all attacks he's making.  so in the context of each game (even B/X has modifiers for strength and magic weapons), that one thing to remember isn't all that tedious.  IMO of course.

Quote from: Spinachcat;738825In AD&D, they are kinda sad compared to other classes. Unless you are a Dwarf Fighter and then you rock.

Bwuh-huh?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738829but I will admit I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your comment about how you don't feel 5e fighters are good with everything.  They are.  

When we played 5e, Fighters became defined by what they could do in terms of the mechanics, and as a natural consequence what they couldn't do in terms of the mechanics (one was specialised in archery, another with dirty tricks (which meant that they weren't as good at causing critical hits etc). This is not what I want to see from my Fighters and the more additional abilities I need to keep track of (including the absence of those abilities) the more tedious I found the experience. Again YMMV