Quote from: RPGPundit;1022213I have to say I don't dig that much. The idea of having a super-class that is in every way better from the regular class (be it elite warriors, elite wizards, elite thieves or whatever) seems to me to ignore the purpose of PC classes as being elites in the first place.

In the larger sense, it's also why I don't generally dig games that have a ton of sub-classes.  You can have all the classes you like, as long as EACH class represents a totally different niche. So if you have tech in your game, you can have an inventor class, or if you have psionics you could have a psychic, you could (if the niche isn't already filled by wizards, as they are in my L&D game) have a 'guy who knows lots of non-magical stuff' class, etc.  But you shouldn't have like 4 different types of fighter classes. Instead, the fighter class itself should be able to encompass a variety of different roles (which is what happens in Lion & Dragon, where players can to some degree choose how to specialize their character's advancement).

Mere Fighters have what has turned out to be a big advantage as player-characters. A Fighter can have another Occupation and people really like playing fighter/hedge-priests and fighter/half-mages. Some people even play the fighter/farmers and fighter/farriers, etc. that I had figured would be NPCs. The Professions, Elite Warriors, Initiates, Mages and Masters or Mistresses of (an environment) make up only about half of the player-characters in recent years, which surprised me. People like the flexibility of having two Occupations instead of one Profession.

Sure, D&D started out as a game where each character filled her or his own protected niche, so that the party had to depend on one another but lots of games have no such structure and the games don't fall apart. Having some class structure, as I do, seems to work out well enough, without being so restrictive.

Speaking of having more than one Fighter class, what else are Barbarians or, for that matter, Scotsmen.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1022261Speaking of having more than one Fighter class, what else are Barbarians or, for that matter, Scotsmen.

They're a sufficiently different category, both in terms of setting and in terms of focus (in L&D they're not nearly as efficient at combat as fighters, not by a long shot, but they are extremely durable).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1022648They're a sufficiently different category, both in terms of setting and in terms of focus (in L&D they're not nearly as efficient at combat as fighters, not by a long shot, but they are extremely durable).

Ah, I've just skimmed them. I thought you equated them with 5e Barbarians, which are not like that, or not quite.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1022651Ah, I've just skimmed them. I thought you equated them with 5e Barbarians, which are not like that, or not quite.

Yeah, I mean they have similarity with 1e Barbarians (and thus, by degrees to 3e or 5e barbarians) but they're not quite the same.

Caveats - For me in D&D anyone with a "class" is already above-average from the average pie-tosser.

I traditionally consider Fighters as the Special Forces of D&D. They'e not "just" soldiers or man-at-arms. They're highly trained, disciplined warriors who specialize in killing people with a variety of weapons and methods. That they happen to *be* soldiers or men-at-arms is more for roleplaying purposes. Much like a Navy Seal becoming a Cop doesn't make all Cops therefore Navy Seals.

Editions of D&D have muted this concept especially post-2e where everyone had a class. The class has been watered down to being next to pointless especially with the penchant of creating cultural archetypes for other classes that cover much of the traditional ground that was held mechanically by the Fighter class. Too much redundancy has watered the concept down.

Fighters are the most skilled combatants. There might be classes that are "tougher" - but none more skilled in combat, barring magical enhancement or itemization in a straight up fight.

That's how I like them.

Quote from: tenbones;1023084Caveats - For me in D&D anyone with a "class" is already above-average from the average pie-tosser.

I traditionally consider Fighters as the Special Forces of D&D. They'e not "just" soldiers or man-at-arms. They're highly trained, disciplined warriors who specialize in killing people with a variety of weapons and methods. That they happen to *be* soldiers or men-at-arms is more for roleplaying purposes. Much like a Navy Seal becoming a Cop doesn't make all Cops therefore Navy Seals.

Editions of D&D have muted this concept especially post-2e where everyone had a class. The class has been watered down to being next to pointless especially with the penchant of creating cultural archetypes for other classes that cover much of the traditional ground that was held mechanically by the Fighter class. Too much redundancy has watered the concept down.

Fighters are the most skilled combatants. There might be classes that are "tougher" - but none more skilled in combat, barring magical enhancement or itemization in a straight up fight.

That's how I like them.

Well,  that's what Elite Warriors are like in my game. Fighters are not the highly-trained elite, they are just people with some training and experience. Maybe I shouldn't have called them "Fighters."

Quote from: tenbones;1023084Caveats - For me in D&D anyone with a "class" is already above-average from the average pie-tosser.

I traditionally consider Fighters as the Special Forces of D&D. They'e not "just" soldiers or man-at-arms. They're highly trained, disciplined warriors who specialize in killing people with a variety of weapons and methods. That they happen to *be* soldiers or men-at-arms is more for roleplaying purposes. Much like a Navy Seal becoming a Cop doesn't make all Cops therefore Navy Seals.

Editions of D&D have muted this concept especially post-2e where everyone had a class. The class has been watered down to being next to pointless especially with the penchant of creating cultural archetypes for other classes that cover much of the traditional ground that was held mechanically by the Fighter class. Too much redundancy has watered the concept down.

Fighters are the most skilled combatants. There might be classes that are "tougher" - but none more skilled in combat, barring magical enhancement or itemization in a straight up fight.

That's how I like them.

Yes, I agree. Which is why in my Dark Albion setting the vast majority of people are 0-level humans.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023725Yes, I agree. Which is why in my Dark Albion setting the vast majority of people are 0-level humans.

We 0-level humans prefer the term "Normal Man", thank you very much.

Quote from: S'mon;1023745We 0-level humans prefer the term "Normal Man", thank you very much.

I wouldn't know. I'm a high-level Wizard.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1021091In Lion & Dragon, I make fighters by far the most competent at combat.  They get more attacks, better hit bonuses, more damage, can use armor more effectively, and are better at parrying.

How strong do you want your fighters to be at fighting compared to other classes? And how do you want them to be that way: special abilities (feats, etc), higher base combat stats (like I do in L&D) or some other method?

In the D&Dish game I made fighters get an auto-scaling attack and damage bonus with every weapon, plus extra attacks every five levels. So they start out a bit better than everyone else (assuming your stats are equal), and the higher level you go the bigger the gap gets. In every playtest game I've ran they've been really awesome, even without 4E- and 5E-style maneuvers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1024106I wouldn't know. I'm a high-level Wizard.

Precisely. A little respect for the enchantmentally disabled, thank you.

Quote from: S'mon;1024114Precisely. A little respect for the enchantmentally disabled, thank you.

Fair enough, normie.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1023543Well,  that's what Elite Warriors are like in my game. Fighters are not the highly-trained elite, they are just people with some training and experience. Maybe I shouldn't have called them "Fighters."

In my game, I use the term 'Warrior' for the best-trained, strictly combat-oriented 'fighter' class. I know D&D (since the beginning) used 'Fighter' as theirs, but I always thought 'fighter' sounded very generic, so your rationalization here sounds perfectly fine to me.

Quote from: Graewulf;1024907In my game, I use the term 'Warrior' for the best-trained, strictly combat-oriented 'fighter' class. I know D&D (since the beginning) used 'Fighter' as theirs, but I always thought 'fighter' sounded very generic, so your rationalization here sounds perfectly fine to me.

The problem was they started with Fighting Man, which sounds cool, but apparently around 1976 decided girls could play, so went to the much less cool Fighter.

I'm hoping that's a joke. But on this forum I'm never really sure.