PDA

View Full Version : Concepts behind the fighter class or Rebel without a CAWS.



Duke Malagigi
2007-07-02, 06:30 PM
After linking to the RPG.net articles on paladins and thieves (now called rogues) I've decided to grace these forums with the article on the fighter class titled Rebel without a CAWS (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/archetypology18sep01.html). I'm hopeful that it can show what the fighter class is, what it can be and what it should be in flavor terms.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 06:47 PM
I have to admit, I am pretty sceptical about this series of articles, especially after reading the Cleric and Paladin ones (why aren't you going through them in order, by the way?). Nevertheless, I will give this one a read with as open a mind as I can manage.

Duke Malagigi
2007-07-02, 07:01 PM
I'm going them in order of personal interest. That's all really.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 07:44 PM
Fair enough.

Well, I think the more I read of what this guy writes the less convinced I am of his grasp of Medieval History. I don't really want to get into it, but there are some pretty crass generalisations in there that only work for the article insofar as you don't know any better. Most of it, however, is incidental to his argument, so it's no big deal (I would also point out that he got the plot of The Seven Samurai wrong, which is just embarassing, unless its me who is remembering wrong, but I don't think so).

So, in this case there's not much to argue about. However, it does seem like he's making something out of nothing, as the general appeal of Fighters is their lack of explicit focus (unlike Knights, Samurai, Barbarians, Rangers, etc...). I have never really known anybody be unable to come up with a convincing back story for a Fighter or have any actual problems with the Class with regard to sense of purpose, role or believability.

I guess, I just don't see the central thesis with this one.

Mike_G
2007-07-02, 07:57 PM
Fair enough.

Well, I think the more I read of what this guy writes the less convinced I am of his grasp of Medieval History. I don't really want to get into it, but there are some pretty crass generalisations in there that only work for the article insofar as you don't know any better. Most of it, however, is incidental to his argument, so it's no big deal (I would also point out that he got the plot of The Seven Samurai wrong, which is just embarassing, unless its me who is remembering wrong, but I don't think so).


It's not you. He butchers the plot of Seven Samurai



So, in this case there's not much to argue about. However, it does seem like he's making something out of nothing, as the general appeal of Fighters is their lack of explicit focus (unlike Knights, Samurai, Barbarians, Rangers, etc...). I have never really known anybody be unable to come up with a convincing back story for a Fighter or have any actual problems with the Class with regard to sense of purpose, role or believability.


I agree. I like the fact that the Fighter has no baggage and you can model a Fighter as any kind of warrior you want with appropriate Feat selection. I generally dislike new base classes like "Samurai" and would rathe build my own Samurai with a Fighter with the right Feats.

If you prefer to play a Barbarian as written, useing the actual PHB class, great. I may like to make up a "barbarian" as a Fighter, and customize him more. Not all barbarian cultures were a bunch of Berzerkers. Maybe I want a Hun or Mongol type horse archer. I can build that with a Fighter or Ranger much better than a Barbarian.

Jimp
2007-07-02, 08:25 PM
I have never really known anybody be unable to come up with a convincing back story for a Fighter or have any actual problems with the Class with regard to sense of purpose, role or believability.


Agreed. One of the guys I play with regularly always has great back stories and personalities for his Fighters. I've never seen someone actually roleplay a bad Fighter or roleplay a Fighter 'wrong'.

Corolinth
2007-07-02, 09:07 PM
He gets the rough concept of the plot of Seven Samurai. He just fails to point out that most of them die.

HidaTsuzua
2007-07-02, 09:23 PM
His Seven Samurai summary isn't how I would summarize it. However his point about Seven Samurai is the same. It's the story of a group of samurai protecting some random village in the middle of nowhere. The only major thing is I'm not sure if the payment is suppose to be a good one.

I found these articles interesting as a discussion of D&D archetypes. "What is a paladin suppose to be?" I think is a question that is and should be asked when you get into a debate about paladins.

Starsinger
2007-07-02, 09:24 PM
I actually think the reverse is the problem, the other classes have too much useless baggage in their fluff. All rogues are thieves. All sorcerers get their power from some sort of ancestry, because no one is allowed to just be a mage without working hard for it. All Warlocks are tainted by chaos and/or evil. Even the names contain a deal of fluff, which is rather forced on them. Barbarian? Monk? Scout? It makes it very difficult for people when others want to re-flavor a class because "The book says a Barbarian is an illiterate person from a primitive society". Instead of "You want to be called a Berserker and be a special warrior trained to go crazy and not wear armor?"

Fighters are blessed with their ability to do whatever they want, without needless fluff weighing them down. If you're playing a character to RP, you should have enough imagination to give them a backstory of their own, without relying on class fluff. And if you're playing beer and pretzels, kick down the door, D&D it shouldn't matter.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-03, 01:48 AM
I like most of these articles. It really made me rethink the Paladin and I think I wouldn't mind playing one now.

And while it's worthwhile to know where these things come from and what they represent? Classes should not be a sentence.


I mean, take the Monk for instance. Probably one of the most loaded classes of all. But when you look at martial arts you see incredible variety. The Monks list of features should reflect this. In the end though you just get almost exclusively dumbed down Shaolin.

In many ways, Fighter was probably one of the classes that was done best because it wasn't so loaded. You aren't limited to playing some dumb thug. Or some generic Knight.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-03, 01:55 AM
I actually think the reverse is the problem, the other classes have too much useless baggage in their fluff. All rogues are thieves. All sorcerers get their power from some sort of ancestry, because no one is allowed to just be a mage without working hard for it. All Warlocks are tainted by chaos and/or evil. Even the names contain a deal of fluff, which is rather forced on them. Barbarian? Monk? Scout? It makes it very difficult for people when others want to re-flavor a class because "The book says a Barbarian is an illiterate person from a primitive society". Instead of "You want to be called a Berserker and be a special warrior trained to go crazy and not wear armor?"

Fighters are blessed with their ability to do whatever they want, without needless fluff weighing them down. If you're playing a character to RP, you should have enough imagination to give them a backstory of their own, without relying on class fluff. And if you're playing beer and pretzels, kick down the door, D&D it shouldn't matter.

I'm a REALLY big fan of the school of thought that divorces classes from their fluff. I think I realized it in discussions with BWL. Use the classes and rules therein for creating characters that are both playable and interesting, rather than being forced between archetypical and unplayable.

For instance, you can keep a wizards flavor as is, and the playability is fantastic.

It's just that some mechanics make certain ideas work better (ie, more HP, better killing, etc) even if the mix makes their WotC-given flavor wonky.

Ethdred
2007-07-03, 05:04 AM
Fair enough.

Well, I think the more I read of what this guy writes the less convinced I am of his grasp of Medieval History. I don't really want to get into it, but there are some pretty crass generalisations in there that only work for the article insofar as you don't know any better. Most of it, however, is incidental to his argument, so it's no big deal (I would also point out that he got the plot of The Seven Samurai wrong, which is just embarassing, unless its me who is remembering wrong, but I don't think so).

So, in this case there's not much to argue about. However, it does seem like he's making something out of nothing, as the general appeal of Fighters is their lack of explicit focus (unlike Knights, Samurai, Barbarians, Rangers, etc...). I have never really known anybody be unable to come up with a convincing back story for a Fighter or have any actual problems with the Class with regard to sense of purpose, role or believability.

I guess, I just don't see the central thesis with this one.


Gotta quote this for truth - though his shaky film criticism was the least of my worries. This is just wrong on so many levels. He even seems to not know the difference between a conscript, a mercenary and a volunteer. And he obviously has no grasp whatsoever of the workings of feudalism. I also didn't see the point of this article. He lists lots of different reasons why people become fighters, and but always seems to be suggesting that no-one knows why. He even quotes the bit of the PHB that explains the width of motivations that a fighter can have. Pointless, factually and analytically incorrect, but at least his spelling and punctuation are good. I've not read any of the others in this series, but I don't think I'll bother.

Rasumichin
2007-07-03, 06:32 AM
I actually think the reverse is the problem, the other classes have too much useless baggage in their fluff. All rogues are thieves.

I have to disagree here.
A rogue can be a lot more than a thief.
A pirate, a ninja, an arabian-style assasin, a spy, a smuggler, a cunning diplomat, a military scout, a former city guard member, a fixer, a gambler with a tendency for cheating, a pimp, a member of a rebel organization, a scheming nobleman.

Even if you stick to thief, there's a lot of different takes on that concept.
He could be a pickpocket from the slums, a cat burglar from a wealthy family who steals for thrills, a trickster, a thug from a crime organization, a gang member, a former trap- and locksmith who has turned to crime, a bandit and so on.

Rogue is a fluff-wise extremely versatile class.
Maybe more restricted in this way than fighter, but less so than paladin, for example.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-03, 06:47 AM
I have to disagree here.
A rogue can be a lot more than a thief.
A pirate, a ninja, an arabian-style assasin, a spy, a smuggler, a cunning diplomat, a military scout, a former city guard member, a fixer, a gambler with a tendency for cheating, a pimp, a member of a rebel organization, a scheming nobleman.

Even if you stick to thief, there's a lot of different takes on that concept.
He could be a pickpocket from the slums, a cat burglar from a wealthy family who steals for thrills, a trickster, a thug from a crime organization, a gang member, a former trap- and locksmith who has turned to crime, a bandit and so on.

Rogue is a fluff-wise extremely versatile class.
Maybe more restricted in this way than fighter, but less so than paladin, for example.

He's quoting the guy who wrote the article, who seems to think that all rogues are thieves.

Rasumichin
2007-07-03, 08:07 AM
He's quoting the guy who wrote the article, who seems to think that all rogues are thieves.

But...the fluff section for rogues states explicitly they don't have to be thieves...i can understand if a normal player does not remember that, but when you write articles about what the classes are supposed to be fluff-wise...well, figures.

Tengu
2007-07-03, 08:13 AM
Read that guy's article about paladins and you will see that his idea of rogues is, in comparison, far from strange.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 08:13 AM
It pretty much accords with his articles on Clerics and Paladins.* Despite citing the (A)D&D 1.x and 2.x PHB, it's quite clear he never paid any attention to what was written in the relevant entries. I seem to recall there being a number of other factual errors in those articles, but I don't recall them off hand.

Actually, if you read the twelfth article where he puts up a pseudo bibliography, you may start to get an idea of why some of things he says appear to be so off base.

Mind, I'm not bashing the articles completely. A lot of what he has to say is relevant and interesting, it is really just a shame that all of the research is not of the same quality.

[Edit]
* Darn, Ninja'd by Tengu

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-03, 08:55 AM
To my mind the big flaw in this article is the fact that it recognizes that D&D Fighters have no particular motivation for what they do, but fails to recognize that the same is true of every other class in the damned game.

All the stuff about how fighters ... (dramatic pause) ... are killers hacks me off as well. Because clearly a fighter who spends all of his time learning to handle a sword is a cold blooded killing machine, but a Wizard who spends all of his time learning to burn people to death with magical fire is a harmless old scholar who only adventures because of his academic curiosity.

Starsinger
2007-07-03, 09:44 AM
Because clearly a fighter who spends all of his time learning to handle a sword is a cold blooded killing machine, but a Wizard who spends all of his time learning to burn people to death with magical fire is a harmless old scholar who only adventures because of his academic curiosity.

Dan, I think the guy is talking about how there's no built in standard fluff for fighters. The standard wizard is a frail old man, or sexy young woman (occasionally an old woman, but rarely a young man... young men tend towards sorcery for some reason..) who adventures to fill his spell books, find material components, that sort of thing. The standard cleric adventures to spread the ideals of his patron deity. The standard fighter... uh fights.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-03, 10:37 AM
Dan, I think the guy is talking about how there's no built in standard fluff for fighters. The standard wizard is a frail old man, or sexy young woman (occasionally an old woman, but rarely a young man... young men tend towards sorcery for some reason..) who adventures to fill his spell books, find material components, that sort of thing. The standard cleric adventures to spread the ideals of his patron deity. The standard fighter... uh fights.

But that's the thing.

The Wizard *doesn't* adventure to fill his spell book, he fills his spell book by buying spell scrolls from the Magic Item Shoppe. And his spell components come out his spell component pouch.

The refrain repeated in that article is "...why fight?" or "...what is the Fighter fighting *for*." It's utterly disingenuous. The Wizard adventures for loot and XP, the Cleric adventures for loot and XP. The Fighter adventures for loot and XP. The only difference is that he has a dumber name.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 10:41 AM
Bah, Fighter is a fine name.

Anywho, yeah, whilst loot and experience may not be the driving ambition of every adventurer, the point is the same. The motivation of a character is not usually dictated by class.