VoxRationis
2014-04-19, 08:32 PM
It should come as no surprise that people complain about fighters being inflexible or "low-tier" or however one wishes to put it. Most people seem to try to fix this by one of two methods:
1: They give the fighter more bonuses, such as things which make their basic attacks notably better than before and better than other classes, at least in theory. This does make fighters objectively better, but it doesn't really address the objection.
2: They give the fighter numerous abilities to increase their versatility in combat. This ranges from the PHBII Knight to certain homebrew classes to the pseudo-spellcasting ToB classes. This creates problems; not everyone likes having all their characters cast spells. Some people just want characters who kill things with swords, not those who teleport with them. Furthermore, it can be out of place for a setting.
I therefore propose a different strategy: Get rid of the "fighter" entirely. Not just the class, but the very concept of a character entirely defined by their combat prowess. Instead, replace the fighter with a suite of classes each intended to fulfill a combat role in addition to one or more potent out-of-combat roles, preferably nonmagical (I personally find the "add magic to it" school of class generation distasteful, as it produces a system increasingly unable to replicate numerous beloved characters and character archetypes from legend and fantasy).
The ranger, paladin, and barbarian from core D&D already exhibit this: they fight, but that's only a part of their function. The ranger is a useful scout, tracker, and wilderness expert; the barbarian can do some of this as well, though to a lesser extent. The paladin can serve as a party face and has a "holy" aspect to it (though I would argue it has less out-of-combat usefulness than the ranger).
Possibilities for out-of-combat roles suitable for such a scheme include:
-High society interaction (a very knightly ability, but suitable for other cultural analogues)
-Command (possibly combined with the above)
-Wilderness survival (consider the ranger)
-Acrobatics and movement, possibly stealth (consider Prince of Persia)
-Knowledge and lore
Obviously, these are very rough concept sketches; I want people to comment on the concept rather than the particulars, as I don't have any particulars. If people want to suggest their own particulars, that's fine by me.
The only problem I have with this idea is that it fails one of my own criteria for classes; many characters and character archetypes ARE defined solely by their combat prowess. Gimli, for example, has very little to him besides being a) a dwarf; and b) good at fighting.
And of course, if someone has already done this and I've missed it, I apologize.
1: They give the fighter more bonuses, such as things which make their basic attacks notably better than before and better than other classes, at least in theory. This does make fighters objectively better, but it doesn't really address the objection.
2: They give the fighter numerous abilities to increase their versatility in combat. This ranges from the PHBII Knight to certain homebrew classes to the pseudo-spellcasting ToB classes. This creates problems; not everyone likes having all their characters cast spells. Some people just want characters who kill things with swords, not those who teleport with them. Furthermore, it can be out of place for a setting.
I therefore propose a different strategy: Get rid of the "fighter" entirely. Not just the class, but the very concept of a character entirely defined by their combat prowess. Instead, replace the fighter with a suite of classes each intended to fulfill a combat role in addition to one or more potent out-of-combat roles, preferably nonmagical (I personally find the "add magic to it" school of class generation distasteful, as it produces a system increasingly unable to replicate numerous beloved characters and character archetypes from legend and fantasy).
The ranger, paladin, and barbarian from core D&D already exhibit this: they fight, but that's only a part of their function. The ranger is a useful scout, tracker, and wilderness expert; the barbarian can do some of this as well, though to a lesser extent. The paladin can serve as a party face and has a "holy" aspect to it (though I would argue it has less out-of-combat usefulness than the ranger).
Possibilities for out-of-combat roles suitable for such a scheme include:
-High society interaction (a very knightly ability, but suitable for other cultural analogues)
-Command (possibly combined with the above)
-Wilderness survival (consider the ranger)
-Acrobatics and movement, possibly stealth (consider Prince of Persia)
-Knowledge and lore
Obviously, these are very rough concept sketches; I want people to comment on the concept rather than the particulars, as I don't have any particulars. If people want to suggest their own particulars, that's fine by me.
The only problem I have with this idea is that it fails one of my own criteria for classes; many characters and character archetypes ARE defined solely by their combat prowess. Gimli, for example, has very little to him besides being a) a dwarf; and b) good at fighting.
And of course, if someone has already done this and I've missed it, I apologize.