Is "Warrior" doomed to be a boring concept?

[Endarire]

Think of every warrior you've ever seen or played. They had one thing in common: They tried to hit things (usually very hard) and generally tried not to get hit.

"Warrior" in this context isn't meant to mean "Ninja" or "Mystic" or "Gish." It's closer to a mundane guy in a fantastic setting. I mean "Warrior" as the Strong Guy Who Hits Things, not The Very Damaging Poison-Spewing, Teleporting, Firebreathing Guy.

Tome of Battle (D&D 3.5) and various systems try to spice up combat but don't change the fundamentals.

What do you think?

[Shinizak]

Hmm I think the problem is that the warrior is only as fun or boring as you make it, the difference is that the mage is given more tools. I've played very interesting fighters and enjoyed every second of it because I was able to jump, dive, and be generally in the thick of things.

[Coidzor]

When you've got wizards throwing around fireballs and such, someone whose shtick isn't making use of any impressive powers himself and rather relying on just hitting things good/lots/hard/well is not going to be very impressive without being made of Badass. And even then, mechanically being badasss still doesn't count for much if your options in and out of combat are hobbled in comparison to everyone elses'.

Magic and other supernatural sources have got some advantages because each spell is a tool and tools are fun to make while there are more physical limitations on the toolkit of a warrior... and indeed, audience expectations put a harder cap on the metaphysical/philosophical extent of his skill.

I don't believe it's intrinsically doomed, but I do believe that as it is envisioned, the amount of baggage people have about mundanes and warrior types is more of an albatross around the neck of anyone who would make them interesting than anything so metaphysical as the concept being doomed in and of itself.

Why you fight is far more interesting than how or even what you fight.

Of course, I have strayed from concept into execution in my analysis.... but, I stand by it nonetheless. Our baggage is the real limitation here.

[Totally Guy]

Why you fight is far more interesting than how or even what you fight.

[Tvtyrant]

The biggest problem is the rules bend over backwards to pander to the none-warrior types in ways that make no sense. Why would reading books give you more HP? Why would hiding let you hit harder? The entire basis of BaB and HD is borked because they don't make any sense for none warriors, but are automatically given to them.

For instance a 12th level wizard with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 6th level warrior. Why? What justification exists for them getting good at sword/knife fighting from studying books all day? If they have enough time to knife practice after each day as well as research new spells and prepare their old without losing caster levels, why doesn't the warrior have enough time to research spells at a slower rate without losing BaB? And how are the wizards getting HD? Do they work out in their seemingly impossible amount of free time?

3.X/P grants tremendous favors to casters by giving them abilities they can't possibly have earned, and gives the warriors nothing to make up for it.

[Feriority]

The problem isn't with the "Warrior Archetype", but with the gulf between the narrative and the game mechanics.

In high fantasy, the swordsman is as much an epic hero as the wizard is, because he's doing exciting things in close combat. In most RPGs, because combat is so heavily abstracted, that boils down to "swing at them, hope they don't swing back as hard", while the wizard has tactical variety from the range of spells they can cast. It's not that the fighter doesn't have a variety of options, but that the mechanics assume that your fighter is already doing all the ducking and weaving, the probing and thrusting, the whirling and slashing; the tactical range of "cool things you can do in a close-quarters fight" is condensed into that single attack roll, rather than you explicitly choosing between them.

How do you fix this? Well, having stances and maneuvers helps; now, you can explicitly manage those tactical options, and get mechanical benefits and disadvantages from them. Having specific combat abilities helps too; one of D&D 4e's strengths is that every class is drawing on a set of powers, rather than just enhancing basic attacks, so each of your cool tricks is mechanically represented, and you have as many of them as everybody else.

Something like Exalted's stunt system is also useful - since it encourages detailed narrative description, your 'attack roll' turns into you describing the detailed actions you're taking in the fight. Having mechanical rewards for good description and interaction with the environment is definitely a good thing if you like that sort of description; it shouldn't be too hard to adapt to other games.

[Ravens_cry]

In a game where combat is fairly abstracted, but still the focus, like D&D 3.X, a pure mundane warrior is not going to be the most nuanced character. That said, it is only as "boring" as you feel it is.
I made a Ranger who used traded away spell-casting and barely used his animal companion. In fact he was aggressively mundane, practically magiphobic, and downright stringent when it came to the law. He was a blast to play though, really butted heads in a delightful way with some of the other characters.
As for options out of combat, they are less limited then one might think.
My favourite character of all time spent downtime developing relationship with an NPC, spent much time with them, courting them, sent letters to them, and solicited after their health whenever possible, proposed and eventually married them in a lavish fashion, having rejected immortality to be with their loved one instead, all without touching the dice or rules ONCE. And I still get a feeling of "that was AWESOME!" whenever I think about it, a high point in my role-playing career.

[Coidzor]

And how are the wizards getting HD? Do they work out in their seemingly impossible amount of free time?

3.X/P grants tremendous favors to casters by giving them abilities they can't possibly have earned, and gives the warriors nothing to make up for it.

HD are things that warriors couldn't possibly have "earned," in the way you've described, much less anyone else.

[Tvtyrant]

HD are things that warriors couldn't possibly have "earned," in the way you've described, much less anyone else.

No? So what are they? The closest the system comes to it is how "tough" you are, but the Wizard has no valid way for getting tougher. And the BaB thing still stands.

[Jude_H]

No.
A system doesn't have to be about combat,
A combat system doesn't have to be about hitting and blocking.
A combat system doesn't have to make hitting and blocking boring.

[Hazzardevil]

I think the problem is that the warrior can fight, it's just outside of combat he can't do much except make it start, not a good thing to do.

[Coidzor]

No? So what are they? The closest the system comes to it is how "tough" you are, but the Wizard has no valid way for getting tougher. And the BaB thing still stands.

That's constitution and strength. HD and HP are how much punishment you can take before dying, which working out does not make any bit of sense as far as "earning," and you're not supposed to accept them in the way you seem to want to force them to be accepted anyway as they're a metagaming concept and if you wanna make them actualized in the game you'd do better with something metaphysical to go with the metagame rather than something physical that doesn't fit.

And if you wanna make an imagination contest of it, wizards, for instance, could become more suffused with arcane vigor as they study more and more lore and cast and memorize more and more spells, such that their flesh is as it is not out of mere flesh and blood but knitted together with additional layers and webs of magic. There ya go. An explanation.

This really goes towards illustrating my point with the shackles of expectations that limit the Warrior archetype from touching on all its interpretations and expressions in RPGs in general by holding it to a much greater extent than anything else in the game to what an individual player could do or conceive of doing himself physically.

[Aux-Ash]

Another problem a lot of fantasy games (but not all of them) is that the creators seem to either abstract or be ignorant of the width and flexibility in melee. Few people seem to be aware that it takes almost 8 years of practise every day to become an even remotely competent warrior. Let alone a skilled one. That combat is amazingly lethal where a single mistake means the difference between life and death.
Rather than picture this contest of wit, skill and finesse they make "warriors" dumb brutes who have a "hit the target the hardest" contest. They don't even differentiate between the various types of weapons, despite that there's a vast difference between how different weapons are used.

It also ties in with allowing mages to do whatever they wish at no repercussion. To do what they do warriors have to risk life and limb to rush into the melee and fight... so how is it fair that mages should be able to do so much more at a much much lower risk to themselves?

And finally... the stereotypical fantasy warrior class is a composite of all warrior archetypes... despite that this is a massively wide field. Half of being a knight is the social leadership aspect. Soldiers learn survival on the march the hard way. "Barbarian" warriors are often farmers, fishermen and/or traders by the side. Duelists travel far and wide and will have seen many cultures and speak many languages. Mercenaries are used to dealing with merchants and scare people into providing what they want. Men-at-arms stoic discipline and usually knowledge of the law.
All those are condensed into one of or a few classes, which often means that the non-combat angle is abandoned to provide a class with as much width as possible... at the expense of depth.
That many rpgs focus solely on the combat-side of things makes it worse... since every warrior in history had non-combat role that was just as, if not more, important.

My favourite rpg, a swedish game called Eon, does not marginalise the warriors at all. All combat is extremely lethal and a skilled warrior in plate truly shines. Magic is dangerous to the user and a single hit can kill even the toughest, which makes someone trained in not getting hit (a warrior) a very invaluable participant in combat.

[Jude_H]

I think the problem is that the warrior can fight, it's just outside of combat he can't do much except make it start, not a good thing to do.

I think you're talking about a specific and deeply flawed game, rather than the archetype. The Warrior archetype includes all the intrigue of Arthurian legends, all the over-the-top heroics of Heracles, and hell, all the things a soldier does when he's not killing people. Certain games are just really terrible at modeling that.

[WitchSlayer]

The fantasy games I play don't have that problem.

[Killer Angel]

I think you're talking about a specific and deeply flawed game, rather than the archetype.

Yes. If we look only at the mechanics, there are many RPGs that favor the creation of warrior types very versatile in many things. Pick GURPS and it's skill system, for example... it's fairly easy to create a fighter with scouting / hiding abilities and developed social skills.

[Godskook]

For instance a 12th level wizard with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 6th level warrior.

This is hyperbole, man. Even assuming the non-elite array, you're talking about a 15% difference in capability before we even get into feat choices. And using logical feat choices for a caster and warrior, we're talking about possibly comparing a shock trooper to a wizard with *0* combat feats.

And then there's the fact that if you wanted to play a caster/warrior type, you could easily do so. Hell, with precocious apprentice, you can enter spellsword with a single level in wizard.

[NichG]

The problem with the warrior concept isn't that its just mechanically weak in D&D. You could use an ubercharger as an example, and it wouldn't be 'weak'. However, it would still be a 'hit things really hard and they die' type of character, where thats his only real schtick.

I think the real problem with the warrior archetype is that its almost made for a solo adventure. Think about it this way: if you just have a warrior, then the story is about he survives all sorts of fantastical challenges with his martial skills, cannyness, etc. Because he's the only character, he drives the plot. When he runs up against challenges he doesn't have mechanical advantage in, he has to be clever to pass them, and so thats also part of the game.

Now look at a warrior and wizard duo. The warrior is still good at hitting things and taking or dodging blows compared to the wizard. Heck, lets say he's the ubercharger from the beginning, and if he decides that an enemy will die and can get to it in a straight line, it dies. However, he will almost certainly be overshadowed by the wizard when it comes to anything but a fight, and even many times in a fight he'll rely on the wizard for, e.g., flight rather than doing something clever and risky like jumping from a tree or trying to bring the fight to a cave. Outside of combat, if the duo runs into a chasm, the wizard teleports them across or summons a giant owl or something and neutralizes the challenge before the warrior gets a chance to be clever. If they run into a tricky social situation, the wizard has charm person and other such things. If they want to spy, the wizard has invisibility.

The wizard is an extreme case, but it applies for a lot of other classes too. They have mechanics that let them directly do things that in a traditional warrior story would be done by 'cleverness' rather than training. And so the warrior is left with a very subservient position.

I'd say if you wanted to make the warrior interesting, either run a solo game or try to emphasize their non-hitting-things aspects: he could be a leader of men, an experienced strategist, etc. Then you have to give those things mechanical support and more importantly make it hard for other characters to get those things.

[Earthwalker]

I would say no, I don't think "Warrior" is a boring concept already. In a small number of games it has been demoted to boring but thats not true in all games and as others have said its as interesting or as dull as you make it.

[Project_Mayhem]

I think the issue is mostly with D&D here. Most other games that have any focus on warriors tend to be better at balancing them against everything else.

There's nothing intrinsically boring about being the sword guy - its just that one of the more popular systems has messed it up

[Killer Angel]

Now look at a warrior and wizard duo. The warrior is still good at hitting things and taking or dodging blows compared to the wizard. Heck, lets say he's the ubercharger from the beginning, and if he decides that an enemy will die and can get to it in a straight line, it dies. However, he will almost certainly be overshadowed by the wizard when it comes to anything but a fight, and even many times in a fight he'll rely on the wizard for, e.g., flight rather than doing something clever and risky like jumping from a tree or trying to bring the fight to a cave. Outside of combat, if the duo runs into a chasm, the wizard teleports them across or summons a giant owl or something and neutralizes the challenge before the warrior gets a chance to be clever. If they run into a tricky social situation, the wizard has charm person and other such things. If they want to spy, the wizard has invisibility.

This is more a problem of D&D, rather than RPGs in general.
Endarire seems to focus more to D&D (seeing the OP's references, such as ToB), but the concept is more general, and within many game systems it's not boring at all.

[potatocubed]

I think the issue is mostly with D&D here. Most other games that have any focus on warriors tend to be better at balancing them against everything else.

There's nothing intrinsically boring about being the sword guy - its just that one of the more popular systems has messed it up

Yeah, I'm thinking of 7th Sea here - being a swordsman in that is awesome. Combat in 7th Sea isn't as abstracted as D&D, so movement and positioning and your choice of attacks and parries actually matters.

Or consider L5R, where 'being the sword guy' is the default position. (Even shugenja are 'sword guys' of a sort.) Combat in that is not quite as detailed as 7th Sea, but the focus of the game is less on swording and more on the other things you can do.

Compare with D&D, where Bob the Fighter is missing the tactical options of 7th Sea and the out-of-combat prowess of L5R. It's no wonder a straight fighter seems boring. You can overcome it to an extent with roleplaying, but you're working against the system assumptions the whole way.

[Drakevarg]

No, definitely not. What's more impressive, someone who uses a massive hyperspace arsenal to vaporize the enemy from three cities over, or the John McClane type who goes against a massively better equipped enemy with nothing but the weapon in his hand and anything he can find on the way, and still makes it out on top?

[Boci]

No, definitely not. What's more impressive, someone who uses a massive hyperspace arsenal to vaporize the enemy from three cities over, or the John McClane type who goes against a massively better equipped enemy with nothing but the weapon in his hand and anything he can find on the way, and still makes it out on top?

Problem is, if he consistently makes it out on top, then either:

a. the enemies are not that massively better equipt
b. the enemies are pretty weak
c. the DM is fudging rolls

A and B and to a certain extent c are fine in a novel, can can kill the fun for many players in an RPG.

[Drakevarg]

Problem is, if he consistently makes it out on top, then either:

a. the enemies are not that massively better equipt
b. the enemies are pretty weak
c. the DM is fudging rolls

A and B and to a certain extent c are fine in a novel, can can kill the fun for many players in an RPG.

Alternatively it's because the warrior is smarter than the enemies. Are you assuming straight-up combat here? A warrior played boringly is boring, surprisingly enough. So is a mage that spams fireball until he runs out.

[Combat Reflexes]

No, definitely not. What's more impressive, someone who uses a massive hyperspace arsenal to vaporize the enemy from three cities over, or the John McClane type who goes against a massively better equipped enemy with nothing but the weapon in his hand and anything he can find on the way, and still makes it out on top?

...you are totally right except for one small detail: Mr. John McClane won't make it out on top, because that's not what D&D is based on.
D&D was originally designed to be a cooperative/tactical game where every party member has to contribute, but the creators kind of lost it with the (full) spellcasters. Wizards can do easily without fighters, but the reverse is not true. A fighter without magical augmentation, protection, flight and such things isn't going to last long in a CR-appropiate battle.

tl;dr: d&d monsters are designed to kill fighters, but fighters aren't designed to kill monsters (at least not without heavy optimization)

[Boci]

Alternatively it's because the warrior is smarter than the enemies.

Smart character requires a smart player.

Are you assuming straight-up combat here?

Its not a given, but isn't that going to be quite common for warrior characters?

A warrior played boringly is boring, surprisingly enough.

Isn't that quite a problem if the default playing style of an architype is apparantly inherantly boring?

[Kurald Galain]

Think of every warrior you've ever seen or played. They had one thing in common: They tried to hit things (usually very hard) and generally tried not to get hit.

Sure. Are they doomed to be boring? Heck no. Ever played a Brujah vampire, a Get of Fenris garou, or a Street Samurai in Shadowrun? Yep, those are the warriors. Nope, not boring at all.

IIRC Tome of Battle contains several ways to actually turn you into a Very Damaging Poison-Spewing, Teleporting, Firebreathing Guy.

[Drakevarg]

A fighter without magical augmentation, protection, flight and such things isn't going to last long in a CR-appropiate battle.

Which he doesn't necessarily need a mage on-site for, does he? I'm not talking about pulling a warrior from a low-magic campaign and tossing him into standard DnD. We're assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the warrior is equipped with whatever the game system in question assumes he should be equipped with.

Plus, this is a discussion of the warrior concept in gaming as a whole, not DnD warriors in particular.

Smart character requires a smart player?

Is being dumb an inherent quality of people who play warriors?

Its not a given, but isn't that going to be quite common for warrior characters?

But not inherent to it. It's also quite common for people who play mages to play blasters, because they're lazy and only rolled one because they wanted to set things on fire with their brain. Less common than people who play warriors to smack things with their swords until they fall down, no doubt, but still common.

Isn't that quite a problem if the default playing style of an architype is apparantly inherantly boring?

"Default" does not mean "right." And no, it in no way makes it inherently boring. "Inherently boring" would imply that no matter what you did with it, being a warrior will not be interesting. This is patently false.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you (indeed I probably am), but you're seeming to approach the issue that the only way to make warriors interesting would be to play them as usual, but with a particular build that would somehow make them interesting. This is not the way to go. When all you have is a hammer, get creative with the hammer instead of trying to build a better one.

[Morty]

I have to concur that warriors being boring is only - sometimes - a problem in D&D. 3rd editon D&D screws it up royally, but other games tend to give fighter types non-combat skills - which is how it should be - and don't include overpowered magic that leaves them in the dust. And even in D&D 3e you can still roleplay your straight-classed fighter in an exciting way despite the mechanics getting in your way.