QuoteSo: Fighters in D&D should have a better range of skills an more skill points?

Solution: Warblade

Quote from: SettembriniSolution: Warblade

So, the solution to all your D&D problems is to keep buying more books until the one with the fix you need comes out? Forgive me if I suggest my Wallet disagrees with you.

Quote from: SpikeSo, the solution to all your D&D problems is to keep buying more books until the one with the fix you need comes out? Forgive me if I suggest my Wallet disagrees with you.

I would say that one easy solution to one particular problem ('D&D fighters are drudges') is to buy this one particular book.

An even easier and wallet friendly solution would be to roleplay more interesting fighters. If you must have rules for it, house rule them some charisma skills.

If a character is being relegated to a role, it's because the player isn't stepping outside that role enough to let everyone know he's not a fan of pidgeon-holing.

James:

As a player, I DON"T have the option to houserule anything! As a player i can bring in my Warblade and have the GM say 'i don't use that book' for whatever reason. Not that I suspect my current GM would, he's pretty tolerant of stuff like that.

As a GM I could care less about the fact that fighters don't have social skills, or that other players tend to marginalize them in favor the Paladins or Wizards or Hobnibbits.  I play off the players, the rules are just there to add flavor and structure for the RP aspects.


Actually, my preferred games are those where my concept isn't straightjacketed by some asshole writer who may or may not think like I do. That, above all else, is what I hate about D&D's classes and to a lesser extent WW's Splatables.  I don't need to go the full bore GURPs route, though I like to from time to time, I just like having my character defined by what he knows, now what he is defining what he knows....:pundit:

Then don't play the game? If you must play a warrior and you can't stand being relegated to a role, and simply roleplaying a different character type won't fix it, you need a new game and probably a new group unless your current group is open to talking about this sort of problem.

I've never had a problem with it on either side of the screen. It's pretty easy to give a character a personality that doesn't fit the typical fighter mold, and then look at people trying to pidgeonhole you as if they were idiots. Having warblades or whatver available just makes it easier, but as I said earlier, is by no means necessary.

Again, if you're (generic you) being pidgeonholed, it's because you're letting people pidgeonhole you.

I'm a total combat monkey at heart and my games reflect it.  I do, however, have a natural bias against boring characters.

There's no reason for me to assume someone toting a sword and a board will be any more or less interesting than a wizard or a stripperninja.

Just don't make another fucking ex-SEAL.  Pretty please?

As a GM I don't generally run D&D, for the same reasons I'd prefer not to play it. As a player my choices are again limited by what is being run in the neighborhood.  I like to play, and I'm willing to tolerate either playing something other than a fighter, or playing a fighter and sucking up having a pathetic skill list, and no points to spend in it (or doing as I did with the character I'm playing now, putting 16 into Int so I can at least know SOMETHING....)

But I'm trying to get a feel for the CULTURE of gaming, other than my own expirences.  I KNOW I've run into the groups that assume the new player who likes fighters is going to be a lump. I've seen the online prejudices against 'lonerbadasses and lesbianstripperninjas'... without a corresponding prejudice against 'another Face' or 'another manamonkey wannabe god' or what have you.  Its strange that most of our 'munchkin' stories and 'bad gamers' stories always involve the guy with the sword, and never the guy with the magic.

Don't ask me, I think those Mana Monkeys are smoking crack... it's the REAL material component.

I guess I have vastly different experienes than you then. IMX if a player is a lump, it doesn't matter what he's playing. Likewise if he's a great player, that'll hold true whether he's a fighter, wizard, or snarf.

I dunno, James. I guess there is some weird idea that you need to have some weird, overthetop combination of whatever to really have an interesting character. Like the concept of the character, as expressed mechanically, is more important in getting a feel for how he's going to be used in game than anything else.

'Dood, your half dragon-gnome-feral wilderkin is going to totally rawk as a Paladin who happens to worship the evilest gawd in the realm, while still being LG, and multiclassing as an Arcanist-Blade and Bard of Cacophony!!!

So, um, Spike? What were planning to play?.... Oh, a human fighter... um... okay, I guess. You planning to multiclass him at some point? No? Oh... uh..."

Numbers and bizzare combinations do not make a character.... but all too often they seem to be mistaken for one. Sadly, as the ultimate 'every party should have at least one' class, fighters get the brunt of it.

Spike:  I only got deep into D&D with two groups: one of small town burnouts and the other a bunch of private school overachievers.  

One burnout party was nothing but berserkers from The Complete Book of Fighters, and that game was hell of fun.  Maybe you could say that's just fuel for the anti-fighter fire, but to me it just made sense for a good time.

Now, the second group might be a little more applicable.  One of the dudes in there has made exactly the same thief character for every campaign since he was 14.  I'm sure anyone who DM'd him for all those years would cry blood if he was handed another Thief character sheet.

Lately I've given up trying to catalog gamer culture.  I might even argue (weakly) that there's no such animal.

Quote from: SpikeI dunno, James. I guess there is some weird idea that you need to have some weird, overthetop combination of whatever to really have an interesting character.

Yeah, definitely different experiences. My group picks up PrCs when they fit, not just for craziness, and we rarely do anything involving LA unless we're starting at a fairly high level. We still have lots of interesting characters though.

Fonkay: I've got a player who's name is rapidly become world famous due to repitition (she also plays online games with the same name... people KNOW her name...) and always plays elves and a severe bow fetish. I've given up on caring about the repitition. She's as much told me in the RQ game that if she dies she's just going to hand me the same character sheet as her new character.  

That's her 'fun', and who am I to argue.  

Of course, even some fighter variant classes tend to get the 'oh,  another fighter type' attitude in some groups.  

James: obviously we've started to move into extreme examples here. Overall, the prevailing attitude is more subtle and the counter examples are less over the top. hell, I started making up terms for the 'exotic' character... though I have encountered the 'three half races... one of which is always dragon' sort of player before in real life. I try to forget them, but...

Heck, i've heard people say 'I'll just play a fighter until I get a better idea' before, like playing a fighter is the last resort of the real roleplayer. :confused:

Y'know, in AD&D, I always preferred playing generic fighters as characters, so I can differentiate them via their personalities and not worry about stuff, but that was before 3.X.

-clash

Quote from: SpikeWHFRP is an interesting one,as the dedicated fighter is dangerous, but many players seem to insist the game is not about combat, thus you see a trend towards 'non-fighters' and 'no-fighting-allowed' games of 'intrigue'.

Not to hijack this thread, but yeah, that attitude seems strange to me.  Haven't they even seen the cover of the rulebook?