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