Greetings!
WARRIORS are often derided in D&D as being weak, and a poor character choice.
I think for starters, the DM can do a few things to provide Warriors, Fighters, the Soldiers and rough-handed mercenaries of the game world with a few extra tricks and abilities to make them shine, even in a world often highlighted by Wizards. Secondly, I think that Warriors can not only be more effective, but shine more, by players actually playing Warrior characters more aggressively, creatively, and boldly.
How do you use Warriors in your world? Have you provided them with something extra special? Do you even think that Warriors are weak, as described by many D&D gamers?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I play older editions, where warriors aren't weak.
The approach I like is that all characters are warriors first, and other abilities - stealth, magic, healing, etc - are in addition to that. If one can't fight, then it's wisest to stay out of dangerous places like dungeons.
One word: Martial Maneuvres. Not only it umph the power, it just make combat more cinematic and more tactical same moment, and less abstracted.
The issue is primarily confined to 3E/PF fighters, who suffer from being nerfed into the ground by Monte 'I Totally Know What I'm Doing' Cook. Interestingly, monks have the same issues despite getting 'neat kung fu abilities'.
Let's break it down.
First off, fighters have a tough time doing anything besides, y'know, fighting because the systems gimp them on skills that could be used outside of combat. This wouldn't be so bad except that after level 6-7, the fighter's capabilities drop off dramatically compared to gish or full caster classes. Short of a long, all day battle that depletes such casters' spell slots, the poor fighter simply can't keep up without several key magical items (ring of freedom of movement, potions of fly and/or haste, something that grants SR, etc).
Getting back to skills: it astonishes me how savagely fighters were gimped in terms of skill selection. Want to be able to see or hear effectively, ride a horse, forage for food in the wild? LOL, good luck! Because fighters rarely buff Intelligence, they usually had to plod along with 2-3 ranks per level -- in a system where a cross class skill costs double, and fighters receive seven class skills out of the thirty six available in 3.5E.
I recall at least one player who simply poured all his ranks into Linguistics, and acted as a translator when he wasn't fighting. At least he had some use outside of combat.
Which brings us to combat. The way multiple attacks are set up are a trap. Sure, they look good, but that cumulative -5 means out of 2-3 attacks, only one will usually hit. Contrast this with multiple attacks in AD&D, where a fighter might swing 3/2, 2/1, or even 5/2 -- but always at the same to-hit number. Worse, any halfway intelligent monster will use mobility to avoid getting locked in by a multi-swinging fighter, which means the fighter must give chase and never gets to actually USE his multiple swings. Again, an issue that crops up with monks as well; they get ridiculous mobility, but that means they can't use flurry (and the two-weapon fighting rules make flurries hard to connect with anyways).
In older editions, fighters benefited from the stronghold and inherent leadership rules built into the class. Spellcasting was also a little more limited (what's metamagic lol) save for the VERY super-high echelons of magic-users.
If I was going to rebuild the fighter in 3E/PF, I'd roll the old marshal class abilities from Miniature Adventures into the fighter. Give them the ability to shout tactical orders to give party members buffs, or brutally demoralize the enemy. It turns the fighter into a genuine tactical combatant and makes them a good leader, rather than just a wall of HP for the wizard to hide behind.
Yes, there's two sides to this: Fighter capabilities/limitations in and out of combat. Then the corresponding things for the other classes.
Then there's what capabilities you actually want and what kind of niche protection there is (which is the primary use for classes, after all). At some point of devaluing niches, you are better off to just drop classes altogether, but there are degrees of niche protection short of that.
AD&D 1E or BEMCI/RC are a pretty darn good starting place for rough capabilities. OK, you want mages to have more spells, more variety, etc? Then some other restriction has to go with that, and it has to have real teeth. Put an increased emphasis on non-combat skills? Fighters have to get new stuff in rough in proportion to other classes. Want to tone down the niche part of classes a tad to move away from combat monster, skill monkeys, face characters, glass cannons, etc? Then fighters get to play too.
In my case, since I wanted some of the more modern features combined with BEMCI/RC proportions, I rebuilt from the ground up with a few key ideas:
- Set the base math of attributes, hit points, defenses, attacks, damage, armor usage etc. such that anyone can participate in combat but fighters are the ones with real staying power and punch. They aren't outright dominant in any one of those categories, but the combination of all of it together means there is a notable bump. In particular, they get a bonus to damage at mid and higher levels similar to the WotC rogue sneak, in a system where weapons already hurt more than they do in the BEMCI/RC base. They avoid damage, take it, hit more often, harder than anyone else.
- Deliberately designed the rogue/fighter tandem modeled more closely to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Rogues have slightly more skills, are more geared to sneaking around, and there damage is a little spikier than the fighter, but the differences are incremental. The fighter is the 3rd most skilled class in the game, and the rogue is the 2nd best fighter, mainly hurting in the armor department. It's not exact, but think of it as if the BEMCI/RC fighter had more skills and the thief was a better skirmisher, closer maybe to the AD&D 1E ranger in that regard.
- Armor matters a little more. It's not like a RQ or GURPS where it is blocking damage level of mattering, but it's generally harder to get good armor, learn to wear it, and bonuses to AC are not plentiful. This has a "quadratic" effect on fighter's ability to stay in combat.
- Big one--the default basis for the spell system is that spells are more available but generally weaker at a given level. Furthermore, with a few limited exceptions, it takes 2 full combat rounds to cast a spell, including most healing. Oh, and healing is in some ways more limited, period (though not in others, so maybe that's a wash). Which overall has, you guessed it, a multiplying effect on the fighter's stamina compared to everyone else. Moreover, since healing is more like the BEMCI/RC levels out of combat, the fighter is not getting worn down much worse than the party as a whole.
At the risk of repeating myself, this kind of thinking is an example of what WotC has generally failed to do. You can't change one thing in a vacuum and then not address the side effects on the rest of the system. Change enough, you are effectively doing a foundational level redesign, which means some of the traditional things are gonna have to go. Can't have it both ways and still get a clean design.
Yeah I'm all about martial characters. But without context when talking about D&D... it's a tricky topic without derailing into the obvious LFQM discussion (which is a real problem).
One of the things that people can rarely agree on is not what Warriors (writ large) can and should do (though there are debates to be had) - but rather what is they can and should do contextually with what spellcasters can do.
And depending on what edition we're talking about, those goalposts shift wildly. This is further exacerbated by the setting and genre.
What I tend to want is this: I'm less interested in tic-tac realism than I am tropes that feel good. Yes, I want my loincloth warrior to have a fighting chance to go up against a heavily armored soldier. I want my lightly armored master fencer to hold his own against enemies that in no particular reality he should be able to win against. I want my samurai to to cut through chainmail-laden opponents because of his skill and he's good, despite the fact that it's improbable. Yes, I want 30-ft rooster tails of crimson arterial glory to gout out of a critical strike.
I want all weapon options to be viable with varying degrees of situational superiority. And those degrees of difference I want options to *close* them for that special Player that has hard nipples to play *that* particular schtick. I want dual-wielding fighting styles, I want sword/spear/mace/axe-n'-board styles. I want two-handed styles. I want open-hand styles. I want people to use a whip and dagger and feel like it matters. I want a player to use a fucking man-catcher and a blow-gun if that's what catches their fancy.
I want culture and traditions that exalt martial distinction! Yes give me your samurai, cavalier, musketeer, zulus, myrmidon analogs! Give me your fantasy-fiction ones! Give them all to me and let's make them glorious.
What I don't want? Is for them to be rendered meaningless by a system that has spellcasters that have no need of them, which invalidates their existence in the first place.
This problem does not exist in D&D 4e. It doesn't have the LFQW problem. It gives Fighters quite a few martial maneuvers. 4e fixed the problems.
Other d20 fantasy rpgs that don't have this problem that much...
Arcana Evolved (magic still rules but it's not nearly as bad as 3e/PF)
Radiance (free on drivethrurpg, 24 races, 30 classes, 16 themes, 0 feats, all in one book)
Fantasy Craft (inverted the magic to martial class ratio by having 9 martial classes and 2 magic classes, yet fully d20, no LFQW problem).
If you want to play a d20 fantasy rpg that doesn't have this LFQW problem, you have options. Pick one of them. Stop playing the games that have this problem. Branch out into other games.
---
Warriors in these games rock.
4e has the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Warlord in the core book. I think the Fighter class should have been named the Vanguard myself, but that's me. I see all these classes as the Fighter, but each is a specialized flavor of Fighter.
Arcana Evolved introduced Martial Techniques to the martial classes.
Radiance is like a mish mash of ideas from 3.x, 4e, and Star Wars Saga Edition. Every class has roughly the same number of class abilities over 20 levels, spread over 4 tiers of play (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, and Paragon). There are no feats and no separate spells lists, but every class is focused on its theme. Hit Points is based on Race and Level, not class.
-- the names of the classes in Radiance: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Blackguard, Cleric, Dhampir, Druid, Elementalist, Fighter, Gallant, Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Invoked, Mageblade, Medicant, Monk, Necromancer, Paladin, Pathfinder, Psion, Ranger, Rogue, Sage, Shadowcaster, Shaman, Shifter, Sorceror, Warlock, Witch, Wizard.
When you include the Radiance Expansion Kit, you get a lot more Races, Classes, and Themes... Many in the science fantasy realm. With these two books you have nearly infinite combinations.
Fantasy Craft completely flips the paradigm of martial and magic. Its a true tool kit game. Crunchy, yet very complete. Magic requires a skill check. It's heavy on Feats and character options. Yet it's another game that gives you so much customization and potential in one book that puts Pathfinder 2e's claims to customization to shame. FC is amazing.
For OSR games, Hyperborea doesnt have this problem either. Not IMO.
I do agree they need SOMETHING in most versions of D&D.
Easiest way I can think:
A) When you attack and kill, attack again, "ad infinitum".
B) When you attack and the enemy is still standing, name one effect. Enemy must save vs paralysis or be disarmed, tripped, unable to cast spells for a round, etc. If the enemy is already exposed, double damage.
C) Extra attacks starting at level 5.
EDIT: if necessary, add +10 damage if you beat AC by 10 or more.
EDIT 2. Scratch that. Even easier:
- Make multiple attacks by subtracting the enemies' HD each attack (e.g, 4 attacks against 2 HD monsters at level 8 ). *
- Alternatively, one single attack with a bonus to damage equal to your BAB.
- Maneuvers as described above.
*See https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/03/multiple-fighter-attacks-revisited-for.html
Quote from: tenbones on April 08, 2022, 03:40:58 PM
I want all weapon options to be viable with varying degrees of situational superiority. And those degrees of difference I want options to *close* them for that special Player that has hard nipples to play *that* particular schtick. I want dual-wielding fighting styles, I want sword/spear/mace/axe-n'-board styles. I want two-handed styles. I want open-hand styles. I want people to use a whip and dagger and feel like it matters. I want a player to use a fucking man-catcher and a blow-gun if that's what catches their fancy.
I want culture and traditions that exalt martial distinction! Yes give me your samurai, cavalier, musketeer, zulus, myrmidon analogs! Give me your fantasy-fiction ones! Give them all to me and let's make them glorious.
What I don't want? Is for them to be rendered meaningless by a system that has spellcasters that have no need of them, which invalidates their existence in the first place.
You could describe my approach as the minimalist version of yours. To wit, I want things that work to make the warrior a fun character. If I've got a way to make, say, 2 weapon work, I want it in. If I don't have a way, well, then it's out. I end up with the warriors that I end up with, and I'm OK with that.
Or, just play something that already fixes the problem and not play D&D. Seems to be the easiest solution.
Quote from: RebelSky on April 08, 2022, 06:09:11 PM
Or, just play something that already fixes the problem and not play D&D. Seems to be the easiest solution.
Sometimes people want to homebrew their own thing, build their system or come up with their own ideal approach I like where Steven Mitchell and tenbones are going with this. That's the way I would like it. I like the idea of fighters packing more punch and characters having more combat style options and such. And for different types of weapons to matter.
I've thought of giving short weapons, like daggers, a bonus in tight quarters situations, when characters are fighting within a confined space, and long weapons, like spears and polearms a bonus in open quarters, where characters have a lot of space to move. Different types of weapons exist in real life because they serve a different function, but in D&D they tend to be kinda esthetic, and you're often better off just picking the highest damage one. But IRL a two handed sword is gonna be hard to use in a tunnel, while a dagger would rule, but suck in an open field.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 08, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
Yes, there's two sides to this: Fighter capabilities/limitations in and out of combat. Then the corresponding things for the other classes.
Then there's what capabilities you actually want and what kind of niche protection there is (which is the primary use for classes, after all). At some point of devaluing niches, you are better off to just drop classes altogether, but there are degrees of niche protection short of that.
AD&D 1E or BEMCI/RC are a pretty darn good starting place for rough capabilities. OK, you want mages to have more spells, more variety, etc? Then some other restriction has to go with that, and it has to have real teeth. Put an increased emphasis on non-combat skills? Fighters have to get new stuff in rough in proportion to other classes. Want to tone down the niche part of classes a tad to move away from combat monster, skill monkeys, face characters, glass cannons, etc? Then fighters get to play too.
In my case, since I wanted some of the more modern features combined with BEMCI/RC proportions, I rebuilt from the ground up with a few key ideas:
- Set the base math of attributes, hit points, defenses, attacks, damage, armor usage etc. such that anyone can participate in combat but fighters are the ones with real staying power and punch. They aren't outright dominant in any one of those categories, but the combination of all of it together means there is a notable bump. In particular, they get a bonus to damage at mid and higher levels similar to the WotC rogue sneak, in a system where weapons already hurt more than they do in the BEMCI/RC base. They avoid damage, take it, hit more often, harder than anyone else.
- Deliberately designed the rogue/fighter tandem modeled more closely to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Rogues have slightly more skills, are more geared to sneaking around, and there damage is a little spikier than the fighter, but the differences are incremental. The fighter is the 3rd most skilled class in the game, and the rogue is the 2nd best fighter, mainly hurting in the armor department. It's not exact, but think of it as if the BEMCI/RC fighter had more skills and the thief was a better skirmisher, closer maybe to the AD&D 1E ranger in that regard.
- Armor matters a little more. It's not like a RQ or GURPS where it is blocking damage level of mattering, but it's generally harder to get good armor, learn to wear it, and bonuses to AC are not plentiful. This has a "quadratic" effect on fighter's ability to stay in combat.
- Big one--the default basis for the spell system is that spells are more available but generally weaker at a given level. Furthermore, with a few limited exceptions, it takes 2 full combat rounds to cast a spell, including most healing. Oh, and healing is in some ways more limited, period (though not in others, so maybe that's a wash). Which overall has, you guessed it, a multiplying effect on the fighter's stamina compared to everyone else. Moreover, since healing is more like the BEMCI/RC levels out of combat, the fighter is not getting worn down much worse than the party as a whole.
At the risk of repeating myself, this kind of thinking is an example of what WotC has generally failed to do. You can't change one thing in a vacuum and then not address the side effects on the rest of the system. Change enough, you are effectively doing a foundational level redesign, which means some of the traditional things are gonna have to go. Can't have it both ways and still get a clean design.
Greetings!
Excellent analysis, Steven Mitchell! Yeah, I agree, the Warrior/Fighter class in most editions of D&D could always use some work, to polish them up and make them *shine*. You are also quite right, WOTC doesn't really think about these kinds of things, either. They don't ask the right questions, let alone come up with the right answers.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: tenbones on April 08, 2022, 03:40:58 PM
Yeah I'm all about martial characters. But without context when talking about D&D... it's a tricky topic without derailing into the obvious LFQM discussion (which is a real problem).
One of the things that people can rarely agree on is not what Warriors (writ large) can and should do (though there are debates to be had) - but rather what is they can and should do contextually with what spellcasters can do.
And depending on what edition we're talking about, those goalposts shift wildly. This is further exacerbated by the setting and genre.
What I tend to want is this: I'm less interested in tic-tac realism than I am tropes that feel good. Yes, I want my loincloth warrior to have a fighting chance to go up against a heavily armored soldier. I want my lightly armored master fencer to hold his own against enemies that in no particular reality he should be able to win against. I want my samurai to to cut through chainmail-laden opponents because of his skill and he's good, despite the fact that it's improbable. Yes, I want 30-ft rooster tails of crimson arterial glory to gout out of a critical strike.
I want all weapon options to be viable with varying degrees of situational superiority. And those degrees of difference I want options to *close* them for that special Player that has hard nipples to play *that* particular schtick. I want dual-wielding fighting styles, I want sword/spear/mace/axe-n'-board styles. I want two-handed styles. I want open-hand styles. I want people to use a whip and dagger and feel like it matters. I want a player to use a fucking man-catcher and a blow-gun if that's what catches their fancy.
I want culture and traditions that exalt martial distinction! Yes give me your samurai, cavalier, musketeer, zulus, myrmidon analogs! Give me your fantasy-fiction ones! Give them all to me and let's make them glorious.
What I don't want? Is for them to be rendered meaningless by a system that has spellcasters that have no need of them, which invalidates their existence in the first place.
Greetings!
PREACH ON, my friend!
I love it! Yeah, I am definitely the same way!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: RebelSky on April 08, 2022, 04:19:22 PM
This problem does not exist in D&D 4e. It doesn't have the LFQW problem. It gives Fighters quite a few martial maneuvers. 4e fixed the problems.
Other d20 fantasy rpgs that don't have this problem that much...
Arcana Evolved (magic still rules but it's not nearly as bad as 3e/PF)
Radiance (free on drivethrurpg, 24 races, 30 classes, 16 themes, 0 feats, all in one book)
Fantasy Craft (inverted the magic to martial class ratio by having 9 martial classes and 2 magic classes, yet fully d20, no LFQW problem).
If you want to play a d20 fantasy rpg that doesn't have this LFQW problem, you have options. Pick one of them. Stop playing the games that have this problem. Branch out into other games.
---
Warriors in these games rock.
4e has the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Warlord in the core book. I think the Fighter class should have been named the Vanguard myself, but that's me. I see all these classes as the Fighter, but each is a specialized flavor of Fighter.
Arcana Evolved introduced Martial Techniques to the martial classes.
Radiance is like a mish mash of ideas from 3.x, 4e, and Star Wars Saga Edition. Every class has roughly the same number of class abilities over 20 levels, spread over 4 tiers of play (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, and Paragon). There are no feats and no separate spells lists, but every class is focused on its theme. Hit Points is based on Race and Level, not class.
-- the names of the classes in Radiance: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Blackguard, Cleric, Dhampir, Druid, Elementalist, Fighter, Gallant, Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Invoked, Mageblade, Medicant, Monk, Necromancer, Paladin, Pathfinder, Psion, Ranger, Rogue, Sage, Shadowcaster, Shaman, Shifter, Sorceror, Warlock, Witch, Wizard.
When you include the Radiance Expansion Kit, you get a lot more Races, Classes, and Themes... Many in the science fantasy realm. With these two books you have nearly infinite combinations.
Fantasy Craft completely flips the paradigm of martial and magic. Its a true tool kit game. Crunchy, yet very complete. Magic requires a skill check. It's heavy on Feats and character options. Yet it's another game that gives you so much customization and potential in one book that puts Pathfinder 2e's claims to customization to shame. FC is amazing.
For OSR games, Hyperborea doesnt have this problem either. Not IMO.
Greetings!
Good stuff, Rebelsky!
4E? *Sigh* I *loathe* 4E. 4E is a hard pass.
Fantasy Craft? I've heard good things about that game system.
As for "branching out"--over the years, I have played and run Rolemaster, Talislanta, Warhammer FRP 1E, amongst others. In time, they all have significant problems and limitations that come to the surface, after running them for awhile. I confess though, I do like some other game systems, as mentioned, though my players always, always, come back to D&D. Through the years, more than a few of them have *zero* interest at all in playing any other kind of game system. So, personally, I must be content with D&D. With 5E now, more players even *more so* are strictly loyal to D&D.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 08, 2022, 04:25:04 PM
I do agree they need SOMETHING in most versions of D&D.
Easiest way I can think:
A) When you attack and kill, attack again, "ad infinitum".
B) When you attack and the enemy is still standing, name one effect. Enemy must save vs paralysis or be disarmed, tripped, unable to cast spells for a round, etc. If the enemy is already exposed, double damage.
C) Extra attacks starting at level 5.
EDIT: if necessary, add +10 damage if you beat AC by 10 or more.
EDIT 2. Scratch that. Even easier:
- Make multiple attacks by subtracting the enemies' HD each attack (e.g, 4 attacks against 2 HD monsters at level 8 ). *
- Alternatively, one single attack with a bonus to damage equal to your BAB.
- Maneuvers as described above.
*See https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/03/multiple-fighter-attacks-revisited-for.html
Greetings!
Some nice ideas there, Eric Diaz!
It's always fun to tinker around with classes and explore different abilities, different sets of strengths and weaknesses.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
After playing around with various things since 2008 I came out for the following for my Majestic Fantasy RPG which is based on the original edition plus supplements.
- Fighters get a bonus to initiative equal to their to-hit bonus from their class. For editions with charts, the difference between what they can AC 10/9 at first level and and what they can hit for at their current level.
- Fighters can attack a number of hit dice equal to their level per round. For editions with multiple attacks at higher levels then they get that plus extra attacks equal to their # attacks - 1
- If any attack that rolls a nat 20 you get max damage plus another roll. If you hit you get double max damage. If you miss you roll damage and add in your max damage, if you roll another max 20 you repeat the process again adding in your max damage each time.
I found these three additions work well for making the fighter more capable at higher levels without the extreme results that the unearthed arcana approach takes. Without AD&D style multiple attack this gives a lesser boost to OD&D. Which is good because I like the more grounded approach of OD&D over AD&D.
Quote from: SHARK on April 07, 2022, 11:27:34 PMthe DM can do a few things to provide Warriors, Fighters, the Soldiers and rough-handed mercenaries of the game world with a few extra tricks and abilities to make them shine
The same people who will shit down your neck for not knowing exactly what kind of equipment you need for jungle exploration are going to "provide" characters with "a few extra tricks" to "make them shine?"
Fucking hilarious.
If a class is so piss-poor that the DM has to coddle it to make it competitive, maybe that's because the class is trash.
That out of the way, to address the actual point: the conclusion I have reached in my setting is that while regular dudes with swords absolutely exist, they don't typically adventure very long: whether due to retiring early because what the fuck are you going to do to dragons, really; or they died because trying to poke fire-breathing adamantine-scaled monsters the size of houses with nothing more than a sharp metal stick is a stupid idea. Instead, each of the various power sources has a fighter-adjacent class that is "fighter, but taps into a power source and so can actually do useful things on their own without having to rely on outside assistance," which allows folks who want to play a combat-centric character the option while trying to minimize LFQW concerns.
And sure, that kind of screws over the John McClane types. But once you reach certain levels in D&D and your adventuring locations start getting more fantastical, vanilla action heroes don't really have a whole lot going for them anyroad. By which I mean that the real problem with fighters isn't that they're sort of silly in terms of expected combat outcomes, but instead there is the environment to consider. If your adventure location is underwater or in the clouds, most other classes either have direct mechanics or abilities implied by their class narrative that might allow them to get to the location and possibly even function within it reliably. Fighters and their ilk are shit outta luck.
The only people who screech Fighters in D&D are weak are sub-morons with worse math skills than me. And thats a fucking accomplishment.
Its been shown time and again that Fighters in D&D have across editions tended to out-DPS the wizards. But the whining never ends. Of course.
Yes its a simple class. Why does it NEEEEEEEEED to be complex and overwrought like every other design "improvement"?
Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2022, 09:45:57 PM
Yes its a simple class. Why does it NEEEEEEEEED to be complex and overwrought like every other design "improvement"?
Indeed, the simplicity of the fighter is a huge part of the draw for me, allowing me to focus on aspects of the game other than ability-based strategies -- role-playing, environmental interaction, cooperative planning, etc.
Likewise, it is the magic-user's complexity I find compelling, for a different mood.
Having both options is a nice way to attract twice as many players.
Quote from: Zalman on April 10, 2022, 11:42:23 AM
Indeed, the simplicity of the fighter is a huge part of the draw for me, allowing me to focus on aspects of the game other than ability-based strategies -- role-playing, environmental interaction, cooperative planning, etc.
Likewise, it is the magic-user's complexity I find compelling, for a different mood.
Having both options is a nice way to attract twice as many players.
Yes, which is why some hooks to keep the fighter doing his thing without making it complicated is part of the goal. That would be distinct from providing a warrior type class that is specifically targeted for people who want to play with the complex side.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 10, 2022, 11:47:48 AM
Quote from: Zalman on April 10, 2022, 11:42:23 AM
Indeed, the simplicity of the fighter is a huge part of the draw for me, allowing me to focus on aspects of the game other than ability-based strategies -- role-playing, environmental interaction, cooperative planning, etc.
Likewise, it is the magic-user's complexity I find compelling, for a different mood.
Having both options is a nice way to attract twice as many players.
Yes, which is why some hooks to keep the fighter doing his thing without making it complicated is part of the goal. That would be distinct from providing a warrior type class that is specifically targeted for people who want to play with the complex side.
So you're saying there's room for both the original fighting-man, and the classes from
The Book of Nine Swords? :)
Though one of the problems with allowing both is that the more fiddly version will inevitably be easier to optimize. With more moving parts and more options, a gamist player will be able to find more synergies or creative applications. So even if you set the baseline power of a complex martial class a bit below that of a simple martial class, the complex marital class will end up more powerful in the hands of a player with a head for mechanics. And the more options the complex class has, the more difficult it will be to keep the classes balanced. We can see this with the classic magic-user, where the gradual agglomeration of new spells and the loosening of the boundaries on what could be cast effectively turned into a huge power boost.
Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2022, 09:45:57 PMThe only people who screech Fighters in D&D are weak are sub-morons with worse math skills than me. And thats a fucking accomplishment.
Whether or not they hold their own in terms of DPS is irrelevant, because that's not the real problem with the class.
To quote myself from a couple years back:
Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 05, 2020, 10:59:50 PMOnce you get to the point where adventures are in fantastical places, the fighter is fucked, full stop.
Underwater adventure in a sunken ship at the bottom of the ocean: how does the fighter get there? Does he hold his breath the entire time? Meanwhile the cleric is casting water breathing and the druid turns into a dolphin.
Princess was captured by giants who took her to their castle in the clouds: how does the fighter get there? Flap his arms a whole lot? The ranger uses his animal friendship powers to get a hippogryph buddy and the monk can walk on clouds.
Fighters absolutely are limited, and that's the problem. In terms of D&D progression, the character concept of "dude who is good with swords" keeps until maybe like 5th level or so, and then it tanks. Pretty much every other character class in the game has ways of getting outside assistance or supernatural power that lets them do crazy - dare I say heroic - things. Meanwhile the fighter gets... better at swording things to death?
The concept is just too narrow and has too short of a shelf-life for D&D. Now if you don't go past 5th level or all your adventures are of the variety that can be solved by "has thumbs," then sure, fighters are great.
John McClane is a fighter. Inventive, determined, hardcore, good in a fight. All that jazz. And for the kinds of threats that a vanilla action hero faces, he's definitely a dude you could bring along. But if you're going to go fight aboleths at the bottom of the ocean along with their sahuagin minions? He either needs to be kitted out in some hardcore equipment (which is at the whim of the DM, mind, not something he inherently has), or the character can't even participate, he can't even get to where the adventure is.
And rogues have the same problem.
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms. Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.
Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms.
Since we are talking archetypal here not just mechanical benefit the problem with fighter isn't with the class it is fact that the other class are not roleplayed properly.
Assume we are talking about the classic edition versions then let's examine this list
QuoteCleric
Druid
==============
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
==============
Magic User
Illusionist
==============
Thief
Assassin
==============
Monk
Clerics are not free agents as a result of being a servant of their religion
Druids are not free agents as a result of being a servant of nature.
Rangers are not free agents as a result of being servants of good.
Paladins are not free agents as a result of being divine champions for good
Assassins and Monks are not generally expected to serve however it is explicitly stated that they are part of a larger organization. And advancement at the highest levels depends on dealing with these organizations.
Magic-Users and Illusionists are free agents. However, as a scholarly profession, they are dependent on others for support while training. This limits their numbers and impact on society as a whole.
Of all the classes only Fighter and Thieves are truly free agents. Free to pursue whatever opportunities without the burden of a creed, service, an organization, or devote time to scholarly pursuits.
If a D&D campaign doesn't incorporate this then of course it not going to work out. There is no competition between those with extraordinary powers and those who do not. Without the above, there is no downside as well.
So how is a Fighter or a Thief supposed to make their way amid all those with extraordinary abilities? How is the poor fighter supposed to breathe underwater? With magic items of course either commissioned or found.
As D&D edition developed people forgot that the original method of "advancement" incorporated the acquisition and use of magical items. Yes, it is not wise to go overboard but it shouldn't be ignored either.
It is baked into the various classic editions as well. A party consisting of nothing but fighters will kill monsters and acquire their treasure which includes a certain number of magic items. These items can be employed to expand the capabilities of the characters.
Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.
[/quote]
Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2022, 09:45:57 PMThe only people who screech Fighters in D&D are weak are sub-morons with worse math skills than me. And thats a fucking accomplishment.
Whether or not they hold their own in terms of DPS is irrelevant, because that's not the real problem with the class.
To quote myself from a couple years back:
Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 05, 2020, 10:59:50 PMOnce you get to the point where adventures are in fantastical places, the fighter is fucked, full stop.
Underwater adventure in a sunken ship at the bottom of the ocean: how does the fighter get there? Does he hold his breath the entire time? Meanwhile the cleric is casting water breathing and the druid turns into a dolphin.
Princess was captured by giants who took her to their castle in the clouds: how does the fighter get there? Flap his arms a whole lot? The ranger uses his animal friendship powers to get a hippogryph buddy and the monk can walk on clouds.
Fighters absolutely are limited, and that's the problem. In terms of D&D progression, the character concept of "dude who is good with swords" keeps until maybe like 5th level or so, and then it tanks. Pretty much every other character class in the game has ways of getting outside assistance or supernatural power that lets them do crazy - dare I say heroic - things. Meanwhile the fighter gets... better at swording things to death?
The concept is just too narrow and has too short of a shelf-life for D&D. Now if you don't go past 5th level or all your adventures are of the variety that can be solved by "has thumbs," then sure, fighters are great.
John McClane is a fighter. Inventive, determined, hardcore, good in a fight. All that jazz. And for the kinds of threats that a vanilla action hero faces, he's definitely a dude you could bring along. But if you're going to go fight aboleths at the bottom of the ocean along with their sahuagin minions? He either needs to be kitted out in some hardcore equipment (which is at the whim of the DM, mind, not something he inherently has), or the character can't even participate, he can't even get to where the adventure is.
And rogues have the same problem.
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms. Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.
Meh, how often do D&D parties go into adventures at the bottom of the ocean or high up in the clouds? I'm not sure I've ever been to one. These are all edge cases, and undermined by the fact that mages and clerics can also cast water breathing on everyone else, even if they had to get there.
And as much as magical items imparting such abilities are at the whims of the DM, no DM who goes through the trouble of planing such adventures will deny characters a means to get there after spending hours writing the whole thing and planning the encounters. Even if it's just some limited charge item, you can bet your ass that characters will somehow find a means to go on this one off adventure this one time.
In the vast majority of cases the real problem with fighters (to the degree there arguably even is one) is that spellcasters eventually outstrip them in terms of raw power, and all that fighters get (at least in earlier editions) is continued combat progression, even after they can already hit everything on a natural 2. And don't get even a basic damage bonus as they go up in level (which shouldn't be too difficult to handle by people bothered by class complexity), other than some crappy +2 bonus if they invest on weapon specialization, which applies only to a chosen weapon.
And IMO, fighters should still get access to a bunch of combat tricks (even if people whine about complexity), or at least be better at them if everyone gets access to them (which they probably should in some cases), cuz they kinda do in real life. So it's ridiculous that they don't in a freaking fantasy game.
Quote from: Pat on April 10, 2022, 12:26:04 PM
So you're saying there's room for both the original fighting-man, and the classes from The Book of Nine Swords? :)
Though one of the problems with allowing both is that the more fiddly version will inevitably be easier to optimize. With more moving parts and more options, a gamist player will be able to find more synergies or creative applications. So even if you set the baseline power of a complex martial class a bit below that of a simple martial class, the complex marital class will end up more powerful in the hands of a player with a head for mechanics. And the more options the complex class has, the more difficult it will be to keep the classes balanced. We can see this with the classic magic-user, where the gradual agglomeration of new spells and the loosening of the boundaries on what could be cast effectively turned into a huge power boost.
If the designer wants to go there, yes. But lets cast back to my original point, which was conditional. The classes, whatever they are, need some kind of rough equality--within the context of that game design and its intended type of settings. Take a game that has that rough equality, then to change one aspect is to require changes elsewhere. That includes changing the intended setting. If you don't want to see that, say, an AD&D 1E fighter gets plenty of items within the context of the implied setting, then you need to change the fighter to get something else to compensate. Play with magic items skewed towards fighters or toss them in favor of more inherent capabilities of the fighters. Make fighting lords matter in the context of the setting or give fighters some alternative means to interact with the settings. Skew the rules or skew the setting or play a different game, maybe not even one with classes. Keep niche protection to some degree or don't. Those are
all good.
Intended setting(s) supported feeds design and back again. One character type's design feeds all the rest. They all feed into mechanics and back again.
You want a complex fighter class? That has consequences for the design. You want a simple fighter class? That has consequences for the design. You want both? Ditto! You don't want to deal with some consequences? Then your design doesn't support the thing that caused it, and some people won't like it on that account.
What is not good at all is using a game outside its intended design with no changes and then complaining that it doesn't work. Or arguments that near as I can tell seem to be some kind of weird power dynamic where the argument seems to be that if only "D&D" was designed this or that way to support this particular play style desired, then lots of people would want to play that way, thus given the arguer what they want--more people primed to play they want. This latter is utterly bizarre me. It seems to be a desire to have a large pool of players so vapid that they will only go with whatever is superficially popular. Especially when its easy to find players for a good game of any type, even if that easy set of players is a subset of those around. I can kind of see it for a player wanting a GM to run the game they want (or think they want), but the answer to that has always been to put on adult pants and run the game yourself, if a particular style is that important to you.
This is why Rebel Sky's point is both somewhat correct but insufficient and dismissive. Yes, sometimes it is easier to just play something else. Sometimes the play experience desired is close enough to thing to make tweaking it desirable but far enough that tweaks are necessary to get there. How the heck does anyone think those "something else" games got made in the first place?
Quote from: RebelSky on April 08, 2022, 06:09:11 PM
Or, just play something that already fixes the problem and not play D&D. Seems to be the easiest solution.
heh, I'm one of the big Fantasy Craft Evangelists on this forum. I fully support this idea - and for more reasons than just "not playing D&D." I'm not a fan of WotC writ-large.
But Savage Worlds does 95% of what I want and does it extremely well, so yep. I'm with you.
Quote from: estar on April 10, 2022, 03:56:01 PM
Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms.
Since we are talking archetypal here not just mechanical benefit the problem with fighter isn't with the class it is fact that the other class are not roleplayed properly.
Assume we are talking about the classic edition versions then let's examine this list
QuoteCleric
Druid
==============
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
==============
Magic User
Illusionist
==============
Thief
Assassin
==============
Monk
Clerics are not free agents as a result of being a servant of their religion
Druids are not free agents as a result of being a servant of nature.
Rangers are not free agents as a result of being servants of good.
Paladins are not free agents as a result of being divine champions for good
Assassins and Monks are not generally expected to serve however it is explicitly stated that they are part of a larger organization. And advancement at the highest levels depends on dealing with these organizations.
Magic-Users and Illusionists are free agents. However, as a scholarly profession, they are dependent on others for support while training. This limits their numbers and impact on society as a whole.
Of all the classes only Fighter and Thieves are truly free agents. Free to pursue whatever opportunities without the burden of a creed, service, an organization, or devote time to scholarly pursuits.
If a D&D campaign doesn't incorporate this then of course it not going to work out. There is no competition between those with extraordinary powers and those who do not. Without the above, there is no downside as well.
So how is a Fighter or a Thief supposed to make their way amid all those with extraordinary abilities? How is the poor fighter supposed to breathe underwater? With magic items of course either commissioned or found.
As D&D edition developed people forgot that the original method of "advancement" incorporated the acquisition and use of magical items. Yes, it is not wise to go overboard but it shouldn't be ignored either.
It is baked into the various classic editions as well. A party consisting of nothing but fighters will kill monsters and acquire their treasure which includes a certain number of magic items. These items can be employed to expand the capabilities of the characters.
Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.
This is am mic-drop. As usual, well said Estar.
All the discussion of Warriors as a "class" is irrelevant for the most part without considering setting/genre/etc. The usual non-contextual edition warring is here, with people speaking past the very conceits of what causes people to like/dislike something.
It's not about DPS/round - yes, Fights can potentially out DPS casters. But Caster can end entire fights, or mitigate entire encounters with a single cast from a clever players. The sheer utility of casters, in general, vs. Non-casters *is* a thing if not handled properly.
And Estar did a perfect starting point of a real discussion on that, rather than broadly comparing one person's conception of what edition did what better.
I've been thinking about this for a while and have an idea (ever playtested since I never get to play on the regular) of not requiring strength to be the main stat for fighters. Let them use any of the abilities in combat. Say using Int starts them off at -2 to hit in the first round but increases by 1 every round they fight the same opponent as the character learns about the opponent's fighting style and defences. Or have the character not deal out killing damage but use their charisma bonus to charm those watching the fight, like Robin Hood taking on the Prince's men as a way to flirt with Marion. Dexterity could be used to have greater mobility by jumping on tables to get the high ground, and kicking cooked pheasants at approaching soldiers. All that sort of swash-buckling stuff instead of making it all separate feats, they could be free for the fighter class as long as they have the ability scores for it.
Then, of course, the party's adventures would need to incorporate suitable situations and environments that let the fighters shine.
Quote from: estar on April 10, 2022, 03:56:01 PM
Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms.
Since we are talking archetypal here not just mechanical benefit the problem with fighter isn't with the class it is fact that the other class are not roleplayed properly.
Assume we are talking about the classic edition versions then let's examine this list
QuoteCleric
Druid
==============
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
==============
Magic User
Illusionist
==============
Thief
Assassin
==============
Monk
Clerics are not free agents as a result of being a servant of their religion
Druids are not free agents as a result of being a servant of nature.
Rangers are not free agents as a result of being servants of good.
Paladins are not free agents as a result of being divine champions for good
Assassins and Monks are not generally expected to serve however it is explicitly stated that they are part of a larger organization. And advancement at the highest levels depends on dealing with these organizations.
Magic-Users and Illusionists are free agents. However, as a scholarly profession, they are dependent on others for support while training. This limits their numbers and impact on society as a whole.
Of all the classes only Fighter and Thieves are truly free agents. Free to pursue whatever opportunities without the burden of a creed, service, an organization, or devote time to scholarly pursuits.
If a D&D campaign doesn't incorporate this then of course it not going to work out. There is no competition between those with extraordinary powers and those who do not. Without the above, there is no downside as well.
So how is a Fighter or a Thief supposed to make their way amid all those with extraordinary abilities? How is the poor fighter supposed to breathe underwater? With magic items of course either commissioned or found.
As D&D edition developed people forgot that the original method of "advancement" incorporated the acquisition and use of magical items. Yes, it is not wise to go overboard but it shouldn't be ignored either.
It is baked into the various classic editions as well. A party consisting of nothing but fighters will kill monsters and acquire their treasure which includes a certain number of magic items. These items can be employed to expand the capabilities of the characters.
IDK, IMO role-playing is not a real balancing factor because it often has no real mechanical bearing on the game, and relies entirely on it actually being enforced—with class abilities stripped, if applicable—for it to even be an issue, which can lead to friction in the game if the player thinks the DM was unfair. But if the group doesn't take RP restrictions too seriously, it's almost like they don't exist. Conversely, if they do take it seriously, but you have good players who're into the RP, it just becomes part of the fun, which again, it's almost like they aren't real restrictions either—specially if the DM hands extra XP for PCs making sacrifices as part of RP, which is how I prefer to handle RP quirks.
I've never had players going against their character's religion when playing a cleric or druid, for example. They just naturally tend to play them as priestly types. So, where they somehow being held back in play for playing their characters that way? Or where they just having fun with it?
Alignment restrictions are a bit tricky, though, cuz they open up the floor to arguments about alignment and how to RP them, etc.
And in the case of mages (which are typically regarded as the main problem class in these discussions) all the book learning happens behind the scenes, usually before they begin a life of adventure. Unless we're talking spell research, which is a whole other can of worms with rewards (learning new spells) in exchange for their efforts and expenditures. So it's not a real setback.
With regards to magic items, the problem with them is twofold. One, they aren't real character abilities. Saying that a character can just rely on an item they aren't guaranteed to get to cover some gap in their abilities doesn't mean that gap isn't there. It just means that there might be ways to fill it through some external means, IF the item is even provided by the DM.
Second, even if the game traditionally assumed characters would just get magic items as they adventure, that isn't explicitly stated or enforced in the game rules. It isn't specified how many items specifically PCs are supposed to get, minimum, or what qualities they should have. It's just assumed items will turn up, but It's not guaranteed that they will. In the case of adventure-specific stuff, like water breathing, I'm sure that the DM will provide something, like I said in my previous post. But there are no guarantees beyond that.
And requiring X amount of magic items to show up also places certain pressures on DMs that might go against the type of camping they want to run. Hell, requiring them to include organizations to boss PCs around just cuz it's an implicit class restriction does that as well, and it still doesn't change the fact that those classes still have certain capabilities others don't, which leads back to the start of my post.
I play mostly 5e when I play Dnd nowadays, just because that is what most players are familiar with, so most of my ideas for improving warrior classes are specific for the latest edition. I include monks in the warrior category.
- warriors don't fumble or auto-miss on a 1 at 7th level.
- anyone can shove or grapple with any attack, which I believe opens up combat and makes it more interesting
- I think the distinction that WotC has made between unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and weapons is arbitrary and I don't see what it adds to game mechanics. Rather it seems unnecessarily limiting and the terms are completely interchangeable in my game.
- I'm toying with giving warrior classes a feat AND an ASI at ASI levels. The other changes don't add a whole lot individually, but I think this would add a lot more power to the warriors; I'm just not sure about game balance.
I'll second that estar was on point about magic items. All editions of dnd are high fantasy games and magic items help to close the gap between warriors and the capabilities of spellcasters.
My solution for making Warriors viable in a system akin to D&D is to just play Worlds Without Number. I can't see anyone thinking a pure Warrior class was underpowered there. The many Feat options also make it possible that a whole party could be pure Warriors and yet have different feels in practice. In WWN a Barbarian and a Cavalier are both just Warriors who chose different Feats as they levelled up.
Instead of giving masses of class options WWN provides a simple framework for building the class that you want. A fighter who's the charismatic negotiator of the group? A wizard who gets into tavern brawls and is a mean bare-knuckle fighter? A thief who's also a wilderness tracker? Easy as pie.
Worlds Without Number has a basic version of the rules that's available for free on DriveThru if people find the concepts mentioned worth looking into.
A good fix for warrior-types is to let them have wider access to mundane skills.
Hey, SHARK! You're a Marine, right? What'd they teach you? I know you got more skills than shooting weapons.
The same needs to apply to warriors in general and fighters especially.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 13, 2022, 10:59:21 AM
A good fix for warrior-types is to let them have wider access to mundane skills.
Hey, SHARK! You're a Marine, right? What'd they teach you? I know you got more skills than shooting weapons.
The same needs to apply to warriors in general and fighters especially.
TBH, I think that's a separate issue from the perception that warriors are weaker than casters. But it is a genuine issue that goes back to the idea that warriors are just stupid and skills are for high Int characters in D&D, which goes completely against the reality of soldiers throughout human history. You had warriors doing stuff like working on construction, helping build fortifications since ancient times. There's also tactical know-how, leadership and basic observation skills to spot enemy troops and ambushes, etc.
One thing that could be done to add interest to fighters is to have associated martial orders of warriors or warrior-monks accompanying appropriate religions. I believe Harn has something like this. Clerics are more like priests who also fight, but I envision these as more "warriors who happen to serve a religion." I guess you could give them very minor priestly powers, like some minor spells, but nothing too powerful in that department. Some might say that paladins already fill this role, but I view paladins more as outright agents of their deity, not just warriors who follow a particular religion. These fighting orders could be for any alignment, of course, though they wouldn't be appropriate for every deity.
They could be actual warrior-monks devoted to one particular church -- such as the Knights Templar in our own history -- or they could simply be fighting followers of a particular religious sect (probably one oppressed by the society at large), like the Hussites or the Ikko-Ikki of feudal Japan. The benefits of a fighter belonging to such an organization wouldn't necessarily be in the form of clerical magic; they might be more material benefits, like being able to borrow money, receive mounts, weapons or armor for an approved mission, find shelter for the night, even being able to use a sort of banking system, as the Templars did.
I don't remember this being an issue in my 1E/2E games, and I think the reason is that fighters lost one of their shticks in the later editions, which is having the best defense. Not only did they have more hp and better AC than anyone else, they also could keep on doing their thing when they were under attack. Spell interruption was a major issue with magic-users, and also to a slightly lesser extent with clerics. If a fighter gets close enough to melee a M-U then he's probably going to win because he'll go through all of the M-U's hp in about 2 rounds and the M-U is unlikely to get a spell off. In later editions the fighters didn't lose anything themselves, per se, but the other classes' defenses were improved to almost match theirs, removing one of their greatest advantages..
Indeed. Spellcasting become to reliable, and it's kinda very reliable in D&D from the get go.
Compare it to Warhammer, where presence of wizard is like threating bandits with dirty bomb.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 13, 2022, 10:59:21 AM
A good fix for warrior-types is to let them have wider access to mundane skills.
Hey, SHARK! You're a Marine, right? What'd they teach you? I know you got more skills than shooting weapons.
The same needs to apply to warriors in general and fighters especially.
Greetings!
Ghostmaker, my friend! Yes, I am a Marine veteran. Indeed, it has bothered me quite a bit that in D&D they stick Fighters with such very poor skills. In my own campaign, I have had to fix that, for damned sure. That is definitely a change to the Fighter class that I have long implemented.
In the Marine Corps, yes, they certainly do teach us all kinds of skills and knowledge. Weapons training; martial arts; other hand-to-hand combat skills; working with explosives; creation of booby-traps; basic First Aid skills; Physical Fitness and Nutrition; Survival; Surveillance and Infiltration; Organization and Discipline; Leadership and Motivation skills; Running, Swimming, Climbing, and Humping; Security and Guard systems and duties; Interrogation Resistance skills; Customs and Courtesies; Social skills and Etiquette; History; Government and Bureaucracy skills and knowledge; Field Fortification and Entrenchment skills; Camouflage and Concealment skills; Basic Financial Management; and more.
I also learned and was trained in Helicopter Operations; Amphibious Warfare; Mountain Warfare; Forest Warfare; Desert Warfare; Jungle Warfare; Urban Warfare; Counter-Terrorism Operations; Resisting Communism and Propaganda; Russian Military Organization and Tactics; Dragon Anti-Tank Weapon; LAW Rocket; Automatic Weapons; Grenade Launchers; Basic Sniper Operations; and more.
That's for Marine Infantry. I had friends that were Snipers; Embassy Guards; Supply Specialists; Cooks; Motor Transport; Tanks and Amtracs; Artillery; Military Police; and of course, also Navy Corpsman.
I also had a couple friends in the Infantry that got to do a very special job--they were Battalion Armourers. I don't remember "Armourer" being a particular MOS, but it was a job, and they got it. Yeah, they did all of the weapon take-downs, repairs, modifications, and maintenance of all weapons for a Marine Infantry Battalion. They had normal ranks like the rest of us--so I know they didn't get paid more--but damn, they did get all kinds of special perks and treatment, from fucking everyone, whether grunt, NCO, or Officers. They practically lived inside the armoury, which was also specially guarded with fortification, barbed wire, lights, security cameras, as well as 24-hour armed Marine Security.
It makes me laugh at how simple and stupid game designers at WOTC think Fighters are. In real life, Warriors are much more skilled and trained than they can fucking imagine. A funny thing is, historically, back in the Roman Empire, over two thousand years ago, Roman Legionnaires had very similar training and skills, as far as breadth of skills and mastery. Not the modern technology, obviously. However, the Romans even then, were very much up on the uber technology of warfare and weapons for their day. Roman Armourers also got special privileges in the Legions, too! *Laughing*
The breadth and diversity of skills is quite amazing. Different MOS's of course have different skill sets. I also had a friend that--while not as glamorous a being a grunt like me--*laughing*--he was a heavy duty vehicle mechanic. Yeah, he was like the armourers, except for any and every vehicle in the Battalion. Hummmers, small trucks, large trucks, he could do it all. Take them all apart and put them together again. The bastard was rolling in cash when he got out of the Marine Corps and got hired *INSTANTLY* making HUGE MONEY at a semi-truck repair shop. He actually had a guaranteed job six months before he got out of the Corps. And, he had the Marine Corps to thank for it all. He learned all about heavy truck mechanics in the Marine Corps, and often worked long, 12-hour days. Very talented guy.
It seems that the Roman Legions also looked for people with special backgrounds, and augmented such by also having special training programs for different kinds of specialists within the Roman Legion. Cooks, Payroll, Security, Medical, Armourers, Animal Handlers, Engineers, for example.
The scant skills and skill-acquisition opportunities for Fighters and Warriors in general in D&D is fucking weak, my friend. Definitely a weakness that needed and or needs a serious correction!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 13, 2022, 07:31:52 PMWeapons training; martial arts; other hand-to-hand combat skills; working with explosives; creation of booby-traps; basic First Aid skills; Physical Fitness and Nutrition; Survival; Surveillance and Infiltration; Organization and Discipline; Leadership and Motivation skills; Running, Swimming, Climbing, and Humping; Security and Guard systems and duties; Interrogation Resistance skills; Customs and Courtesies; Social skills and Etiquette; History; Government and Bureaucracy skills and knowledge; Field Fortification and Entrenchment skills; Camouflage and Concealment skills; Basic Financial Management; and more.
This is a reasonable skill set for a person who needs to fight in the modern world.
Now pit someone with this training against a handful of trolls, a fire-breathing dragon, or a lich throwing crazy-ass spells around.
Then do the same with someone from a vaguely-medieval setting who doesn't have access to modern medicine, nutrition, education, or technology.
Quote from: SHARK on April 13, 2022, 07:31:52 PM
In the Marine Corps, yes, they certainly do teach us all kinds of skills and knowledge. Weapons training; martial arts; other hand-to-hand combat skills; working with explosives; creation of booby-traps; basic First Aid skills; Physical Fitness and Nutrition; Survival; Surveillance and Infiltration; Organization and Discipline; Leadership and Motivation skills; Running, Swimming, Climbing, and Humping; Security and Guard systems and duties; Interrogation Resistance skills; Customs and Courtesies; Social skills and Etiquette; History; Government and Bureaucracy skills and knowledge; Field Fortification and Entrenchment skills; Camouflage and Concealment skills; Basic Financial Management; and more.
SNIP
This. It drives me crazy how little the average person understands fighting and physical skills. Soldiers, fighters, strength athletes, and laborers are stereotyped as idiots by the general populace, but gamers, most of whom seem to have eschewed any kind of physical acivity after being born, tend to be even more dogmatic in their belief that strength/warrior = stupidity.
SOF personnel have to be above average intelligence, in addition to being in peak physical condition. And it wasn't any different throughout history. Look at the napoleonic guards that we adopted the word grognard from, the crusading knightly orders, the spartans, the samurai, the mamluks, etc.
Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 13, 2022, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 13, 2022, 07:31:52 PMWeapons training; martial arts; other hand-to-hand combat skills; working with explosives; creation of booby-traps; basic First Aid skills; Physical Fitness and Nutrition; Survival; Surveillance and Infiltration; Organization and Discipline; Leadership and Motivation skills; Running, Swimming, Climbing, and Humping; Security and Guard systems and duties; Interrogation Resistance skills; Customs and Courtesies; Social skills and Etiquette; History; Government and Bureaucracy skills and knowledge; Field Fortification and Entrenchment skills; Camouflage and Concealment skills; Basic Financial Management; and more.
This is a reasonable skill set for a person who needs to fight in the modern world.
Now pit someone with this training against a handful of trolls, a fire-breathing dragon, or a lich throwing crazy-ass spells around.
Throw in the modern military equipment that goes with such training and you have the basis for a very interesting game.
Folks need to keep in mind that OD&D was designed for people who knew how medieval combat worked. And the expectation that if it wasn't covered that the referee would read up on the medieval period on how stuff worked and make a ruling accordingly.
It is not a flaw that OD&D and its immediate successors omit this information. If you prefer to have the mechanical detail or consistently rule on certain things the same way every time. Then sure add the rules you like or use. My additions are a result of how I choose to handle things like initiative and multiple attacks. My friends when they run OSE or a classic edition make their own choices on how to handle this stuff.
The only flaw in this situation is TSR forgetting about this and doing a half-ass job of explaining things in their books. Then compounded it in the later AD&D books and the AD&D 2e books by trying to paper it over with ill-fitting mechanics.
I really like DCC'S warrior and the mighty deeds of arms mechanic. It gives them a damage bonus, and lots of utility. They also get access to superlative critical hits with their bonkers critical hit charts.