In 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?
Well, for one, I think they should improve at fighting every level. Most spell casters gain a new spell every level, so fighters should improve at hitting a target every level. The alternate progression in 1e is pretty much it, IMHO (the table says fighters improve 2 every 2 levels, but mentions that a DM can opt to do it 1 every level).
As opposed to 0e, where fighters only improved once ever 3 levels, compared to clerics 4 and MUs 5. A 3rd level fighting fighting as well as a 1st level? Or a 1st level MU for that matter.
I wouldn't go crazy with the armor, as I think clerics should be viable front line types. They just shouldn't do as much damage as fighters.
In my OD&D, they get +1 Attack bonus per level and "Kill & Kill Again" (aka, Cleave). That's been enough for my players to be happy. I have played around with Damage and/or AC bonuses, but I fluxuate that about depending on the campaign.
I like them significantly better at Fighting than other non-Fighter classes, though I want other classes to be able to contribute in combat.
They should either be more resilient (better AC/hp), do more damage, or both.
I think my favourite D&D version is the 4e D&D Fighter, who is more resilient than almost anyone (the splatbook Warden class edges it) with very good damage and battlefield control. The 5e D&D Fighter is a Striker, very good damage but usually not very resilient - could be good with Heavy Armour Mastery feat but IME players go for the attack feats. 3e Fighter is garbage. 2e I think is slightly weak for the XP chart but ok. 1e Fighter with Weapon Specialisation is a God of War, unless everyone else has it too. :)
This is why I like D&D, with only a few exceptions the Fighter has been the most durable and sustained damage dealing class pre-WOTC and 5e pushes them back to the top again.
I either want them to be:
A. Tops at fighting, or
B. More skilled than some editions make them--i.e. not pigeon-holed. Don't really care whether that is through the mechanics explicitly, or the more implicit style of earlier D&D with adventurers able to do many things. (I take it back. I do care. I like a mix of those styles.)
If there is no good reason to start as fighter and continue as one, then there is something wrong with the system.
For D&D generally speaking...
1. Fighters
2. Paladins/Rangers/Barbarians/Cavaliers - ie. Fighters+X (I can accept them being more like fighters if they are proportionately rarer.)
3. Clerics/Assassins/Monks
4. Thieves
5. Minstrels/Bards (not the Druidic ones, the 2e ones)
6. Any Arcane Caster
If Fighters aren't Gods of War, what's their point in a class system?
Quote from: CRKrueger;1021155If Fighters aren't Gods of War, what's their point in a class system?
I can only agree with this.
I added damage and AC bonuses, plus an extension of the Errol Flynn Rule: If your minimum damage is enough to kill an opponent, you get a free attack.
Quote from: Elfdart;1021274I added damage and AC bonuses, plus an extension of the Errol Flynn Rule: If your minimum damage is enough to kill an opponent, you get a free attack.
Which version of D&D? (Honest curiousity)
Quote from: JeremyR;1021099As opposed to 0e, where fighters only improved once ever 3 levels, compared to clerics 4 and MUs 5. A 3rd level fighting fighting as well as a 1st level? Or a 1st level MU for that matter.
A 3rd level fighter was absolutely better at fighting than a 1st level fighter or MU--they had the AC and HP that you might conceivably put them in melee with a ______ (pick your opponent). They also could take 3 swings at 1hd opponents.
I think more importantly the AC spread in OD&D was a bit lower. This is a gut instinct and I haven't done the analysis. But I feel like +5 armor and shield is something that you might theoretically get in oD&D but wouldn't in actual play, while in AD&D you might. Add in full plate from UA, and genuine negative ACs are not completely absurd. Same feeling about monster ACs (again, I could just look at the monster ACs, but I'm thinking more of 'actual in play average opponent AC' which is a more complex question). So I feel like if in oD&D you were to give fighters a +1/level, it would quickly become a case of 'AC is irrelevant for fighters.' I suppose that's not inherently a bad thing (AC matters for rogues and clerics and 1st level characters, but not heroic high-level fighters), but it hits on my 'why have a mechanism like AC if you're just going to make it obsolete?' gut reaction.
To the OP (and thus deliberately veering into opinion): I feel that fighters should have the mechanical support to emulate someone like Boromir in the cinematic LotR saga -- his father could ask the question, "
How did you escape, and my son did not, so mighty a man as he was?" In other words, fighters are not so crazy good at fighting that they never die, but they are so mighty that if they do, you expect it is because the whole side they were on were wiped out.
The Errol Flynn Rule* is from 1E AD&D, but I use it when I play Holmes, 2E or other versions. My addition allows fighters to mow down other weak monsters, not just 0-level or creatures with less than a full d8 for hit points.
* A fighter gets to attack as many scrubs as he has levels.
I find for OD&D adding the Fighters to hit bonus as a initiative bonus to good way to make the fighter more effective without adding a lot of kewl powers
I personally would like to see Fighters get a damage bonus equal to half their level or even equal to their level with every attack.
Rangers can feather you with arrows and have magic, Paladins get smites and magic and Barbarians have rage and dull caster classes, well we know what the can do.
But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.
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?
I have a class called Elite Warriors. They are the terror of the battlefield. They are about what one might expect from that name: knights, samurai, Kshatriya (India), plains Dog Soldiers, Spartiates (although they are soldiers rather than warriors) Some none-Humans, Hobgoblin Blood-kin, Dwarf regular As (also soldiers) Elf Immortals, whatever the Game Master wants for the setting, really. They train from late childhood for battle. They can have other interests and hobbies but not another Occupation. They do study tactics and strategy and leadership and some learn diplomacy. Some are born to the Profession and others, like the Dwarf Regular As, are tested for aptitude and either required or allowed, depending on the society, to enter training.
Fighters are about two steps behind. They hit less often and they are easier to hit. They aren't complete amateurs. They have done military service or been in a bandit band or something like that. They are not what D&D calls fighters. They often have inferior equipment. Followers armor _looks_ like Samurai armor, for instance, but it is mass-produced munitions quality and not as good. However, Fighters can have another whole Occupation. Some other classes have as much combat ability as Fighters but most are a step behind them.
In dnd style games, I like fighters to have the best armour, best weapons, excellent hit chance, excellent damage, good durability and adaptable in combat. With a bit of out of combat utility on the side.
I also want all the other classes to be good at combat however. Just in other ways, and generally less frequently than the fighter, whose abilities I prefer to be "always on". For example, I prefer the fighter ability "crits on 19-20" as opposed to a 2/day second wind mini heal.
I don't want the fighter to be a towering juggernaut on the battlefield, resigning other classes to a cheer squad (which was my feeling with 4e post 11th level; the strikers did all the heavy lifting, and it got boring for the other roles).
I think my favorite iterations of "fighters" have been the 4e one and making any fighting focused character in RQ6/Mythras. I like options with my being tough.
I don't have a problem with anyone else having armor and being as tough as me, but they shouldn't really go past me. I should be able to pick up just about any weapon (or a large set, at least) and use it effectively. I should be able to cover close up and range, even if it means thrown weapons. I should have a shield, because shields are smart. I should be strong, and do a lot of damage, though it doesn't have to be that much more than anyone else. Strong dude with a big sword should be doing the same damage as me, but maybe he doesn't get my tricks. He's probably not as good with the small sword, the big bow, the spear, the axe, or the mace as me, but he shouldn't be that far behind me in that one thing. I should be able ot move through my options seamlessly. I train in this, constantly. I should be moving to my backup weapon (and by god, I have a backup weapon) if I get disarmed (and I will practice not getting disarmed later). I am disadvantaged, i have a way out that I'm practiced at, and probably pretty good. I should not be able to be easily removed.
I like my fighters sort of comparable to batman wizards, but a bit different scale and feel.
Talking early D&D, I like the 'attacking creatures of 1HD or less' rule or, even better, the simplified houserule that a fighter can kill 1dLevel enemies per round if fighting no opponent of greater than 1HD. Speeds up combat immensely, makes fighters great against mooks.
Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1021472Talking early D&D, I like the 'attacking creatures of 1HD or less' rule or, even better, the simplified houserule that a fighter can kill 1dLevel enemies per round if fighting no opponent of greater than 1HD. Speeds up combat immensely, makes fighters great against mooks.
Yup, the "Fighter's Number of Attacks vs. 1 HD-1 enemies Equal to Fighter Level" was a remarkably good rule, carried all the way through into AD&D 2e DMG. Even at second level and beyond you are getting horde breaking speed, as it's additional attacks that do not affect their already extant multiple attacks. Even a one-handed 3/2 rd Wpn. Spec. attack spread at 2nd lvl is striking 5 times in two rounds, (1st rd: 2 atk for 2nd lvl vs. 1HD-1; 2nd rd: 2 atk for 2nd lvl vs. 1HD-1 plus an iterative atk = 5 atk in 2 rds).
Funny, I always hated the Fighter Attacks = Level rule, every since I ran Isle of Dread and saw what some double-digit level Fighters did to those poor Natives. :eek:
I never liked the fighter attacks = level vs 1 hd creatures. It never seemed to pop up much. But i guess that was just the adventures we used.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1021452I personally would like to see Fighters get a damage bonus equal to half their level or even equal to their level with every attack.
Rangers can feather you with arrows and have magic, Paladins get smites and magic and Barbarians have rage and dull caster classes, well we know what the can do.
But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.
I started doing that when I ditched the monk class.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1021495I never liked the fighter attacks = level vs 1 hd creatures. It never seemed to pop up much. But i guess that was just the adventures we used.
Personally, in the one (or was two?) games of 1e (? Memory is hazy there) I played, that also never came up. As most of monsters we faced were 1 HD +1.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1021452I personally would like to see Fighters get a damage bonus equal to half their level or even equal to their level with every attack.
Rangers can feather you with arrows and have magic, Paladins get smites and magic and Barbarians have rage and dull caster classes, well we know what the can do.
But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.
I did that in 3.x, but I put it across the Fighter classes (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Fighter), simply due to the fact that the other classes had an escalating damage system built in.
In 5e, I'm allowing the Fighting Man types to gain a Weapon Die (or Dice in the case of Mauls and Great Swords) every 5th levels like the Cantrips (The Fighter's Extra Attack is a trap anyway. A monk at 5+ level gets four attacks per Chi point spent. Fighter's have to wait until 20th level. A Horde Breaker Ranger with Dual Wielding does less damage but also gets 4 attacks at level 5+), so far it seems to be working OK. We don't have a Rogue so I cannot compare this ruling to that class.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1021452But I want a Fighter that can challenge a Giant or a Dragon and beat it's ass.
I find in 5e D&D it's the Barbarian who is closest to my idea of what a 'tough guy' Fighter should be. It's the Barbarian I see solo ridiculously tough monsters.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1021495I never liked the fighter attacks = level vs 1 hd creatures. It never seemed to pop up much. But i guess that was just the adventures we used.
It is certainly a mechanic whose benefit is very 'what one ends up fighting'-dependent. Given monster entries indicating that you might end up fighting hundreds of orcs or goblins, I think it was simply such that the game designer assumptions and what DMs ended up doing did not end up syncing up.
I will give 3e credit-- Cleave and Whirlwind Attack are nice, simple, straightforward ideas.
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?
Every character/class/role realisticly strong compared to each other.
Many people are fine with a soldier or knight being far stronger than a baker or scribe, problem is if one begins to make more capable fighters and then moves to spellcasters players usually complain about to lack of 'balance' if you make wizards, witches, warlocks powerful, although that would make sense in a fantasy setting, to a point that their families/guilds/schools rule the world instead of usual nobility, and could with spells subdue anyone else other than large masses of people, other spellcasters, or supernatural.
If one doesn't complain about tough warriors, then they shouldn't about mages which don't become spent/useless after a few spells per day. People in a fantasy world should be fearful of great fighters, warlords, but the same should be true even more for wizards.
High speed with low drag. :D
I play TFT & GURPS and use and focus on tactical combat being one of the main things the game is about. Most PCs tend to be non-magic-using fighters of one variety or another. So I like/want/need to have there be an interesting range of styles and abilities for fighters, and for fighting skills to be useful and needed even when a powerful wizard is around.
Part of that is accomplished by limiting what spell effects exist or are known or available (or at least common) to things that aren't going to make all the fighters redundant or dead.
Most of it is baked into TFT or GURPS already. The TFT magic system especially is balanced for fighters to be on par with wizards (really powerful wizards start to be really powerful, but not many survive to get that powerful, and they still pretty much want/need fighters with them as well). The GURPS character & combat systems especially have interesting differences between characters based on their character stats/skills/traits, equipment, and choices during combat. Skilled, well-equipped, and tactically sound fighters can usually avoid being injured (not soak massive injury) and defeat larger forces of less-skilled/smart opponents, though there's always the risk of something going wrong and the need to come up with what to do to prevent or respond to mishaps.
In think that the Fighter is the measure all other classes. I tend to like the fighters of old when they (at higher levels) were the beasts at the battlefield. And it was also what I liked best about 4e D&D. Say what you want about 4e, but to it's credit the Fighter and martial classes in generel, got to shine. Which was my one of the three best things about it*.
(* Nr 2 Making cleric optional in the party. Nr 3 self-contained statblocks.)
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1021455I have a class called Elite Warriors.
I 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).
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. :p
Quote from: S'mon;1023745We 0-level humans prefer the term "Normal Man", thank you very much. :p
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.
Quote from: Bren;1024940I'm hoping that's a joke. But on this forum I'm never really sure.
British humour.
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.
Thanks. I had long decided that there ought to be something
between the elite fighting specialists and the ordinary zero level mooks. I thought of calling the elite types "warriors" and the people with somewhat less training "soldiers" but that is a different distinction, at least to me. Actually, my Elite Warrior class includes some soldiers, Spartiates, Dwarf Regular As, etc. and there are warriors in my fighter class.
To me (and in my games) a straight-up fighter is a badass, a bloodied battlefield veteran, equally skilled with all weapons and comfortable in all kinds of armour, no matter how unlikely that may seem. Warriors aren't so well-trained and tend to be equipped as their culture allows, rather than optimised for the best adventuring experience. They are like bandits, brigands etc, in that they're strictly for the Random Encounter Charts in my games.
Quote from: S'mon;1024972British humour.
That's a relief. Next time toss in 'grey' or 'colour' or switch an "s" for a "z" so it'll be obvious to me. :D
Quote from: S'mon;1024920The 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 always thought "fighting man" was a really weird choice of term. Fighter or Warrior were both much more obvious.
My only guess as to why it was 'fighting man' is that maybe that was something lifted from wargaming?
Not D&D specific - but I like a system's standard fighter/warrior class to be subtly better at combat than other martials. Sure - X or Y gets cool powers in addition to similar combat stats, but the fighter/warrior should get things like being a pool to add a bonus point or two to an attack roll after the fact to confirm a hit, or they get to shift a foe around the battlefield a bit to a more advantageous position. etc.
Plus - I like the vibe of them being more versatile in combat that power-based martials. Sure - X is as good in melee, but the warrior/fighter can pull out a longbow (or an assault rifle or whatever) and be effective with it too.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1025415I always thought "fighting man" was a really weird choice of term. Fighter or Warrior were both much more obvious.
My only guess as to why it was 'fighting man' is that maybe that was something lifted from wargaming?
Almost certainly from John Carter, Fighting Man of Mars, I think.
one thing that might be related here - a lot of good fighters and martial artists study a whole bunch of different forms of combat, specifically to have options. being able to blend them seamlessly is one measure of the strength of the fighter. If you can move from solid muy thai skills into solid BJJ skills and back, you become a threat from a lot of places. Add in weapons (ranged, thrown, melee, shield, etc), and you become pretty tough to take down and no one wants to engage - they are likely to die. to a large extent, they view the different techniques like a swiss army knife. right tool for the right job.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1025415I always thought "fighting man" was a really weird choice of term. Fighter or Warrior were both much more obvious.
My only guess as to why it was 'fighting man' is that maybe that was something lifted from wargaming?
Possibly, but
fighting man is an old-fashioned term for soldier, dating at least as far back as Homer. It was in common use in the Middle Ages and early modern era. I rather prefer it to "warrior", since it's less hackneyed or pretentious.
I find this subtopic interesting but also very odd. I consider 'fighting man,' 'fighter,' and 'warrior' to all be generic descriptors possible. Using the individual whose career it is to operate a 18-wheeler as an analogy, these three terms are the same as 'driving man,' 'driver,' and 'trucker.' If I wanted something that was badass, cool, uncool, hackneyed, pretentious, obscure, old-fashioned-sounding, or anything else, I'd pick something else. These, to me, are the generics.
Having just played the second session of my new Lion & Dragon campaign, I have to say that the players who were running fighters were really happy with how badass fighters can be in the game.
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.
It's a good start.
QuoteHow strong do you want your fighters to be at fighting compared to other classes?
How strong do you like wizards to be at arcane magic compared to thieves? That much stronger.
QuoteAnd 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?
All of these, combined.
Quote from: AsenRG;1025845How strong do you like wizards to be at arcane magic compared to thieves? That much stronger.
Good answer.