Fighter A-Go-Go

Et tu, Schwalb? 

Before I go into some of what is wrong with both the article, I will answer that none of the options individually portrays what a fighter is or should be, and they aren't even mutually exclusive. Why cannot a fighter have fighting styles and focus on a weapon? Do any of those things mean she cannot defend her allies?

When I think of a fighter I tend to cleave to the archetype of a tough, strong, skilled warrior clad in heavy armor, usually keeping her allies safe from harm. That is to say that I don't think that a fighter must be a tank, but the archetype is common enough that it should certainly be an option.

Personally I think the slayer and knight best evoke the two strongest fighter concepts; the slayer is all about damage output with a big-fucking weapon, while the knight is more durable and has mechanics that can actually keep her allies safe. I guess my preference would be:

·         Exclusive weapon (or preferrably weapon-category) perks of some kind. This can be class features, feats, or exploits that make you better with a weapon or let you do something else with it in the vein of 4th Edition. Like, knock people around with a spear, knock them down with a hammer, etc.

·         Stances were a great addition and provide a simple mechanic for allowing a fighter to mix things up without a lot of book-keeping.

·         At the least an option for a fighter to actually be able to defend her allies. None of the bullshit from older editions that said you could do that even though you really could not (short of fighting in a narrow tunnel so that nothing could squeeze by your corpse).

Normally I can really get behind the stuff that Rob talks about, but this time? It reads like Monte Cook logged in to his account and is trying to post something in his name, just to see if anyone would notice. Hell, there is a 40+ page thread on RPG.net, and plenty of peole there assumed it was Cook even after being told that it was Schwalb. As someone in the thread put it, these polls feel less like they are actually trying to gather data, and more like they are trying to covince you of decisions that they have already made.

"The fighter is the class you hand to the new player who doesn't know much about RPGs."

Maybe in older editions, where all the fighter did was spam the same attack over and over again while inexorably being eclipsed by the wizard, but current fighters are just as complex and flexible as any of them. Hell even the knight and slayer provide more options and better balance without sacrificing much of the simplicity, making them ideal choices for players that don't want to have to juggle a lot of mechanics around.

At any rate this is a stupid mentality. A player new to a game should be able to play whatever the fuck they want. It is a fantasy game, and if a player wants to play a wizard they should be able to without having to go through an unrelated tutorial class first.

"The fighter also protects his or her allies."

In 4th Edition, sure. In previous editions, how? There was literally nothing from stopping a monster from just walking past the fighter and mauling the cleric or wizard to death. I guess the fighter might be able to make an attack of opportunity in 3rd Edition, but otherwise the fighter cannot do anything about it. This is not a major problem for monsters in the Ingelligence range of nil to stupid, but smart ones that know what magic is or employ tactics are likely to focus on the wizard or cleric.

Of course, none of this matters if the fighter cannot even touch the monster or is easy to take out of the fight, which can happen in the mid-level range due to monsters that can fly, teleport, or just cast a Will-based spell to confuse, scare, or just mind-control her.

"The fighter leads the charge, hacking down enemies with sword and axe, at least when the fighter isn't sitting in the back loosing arrows against gibbering horde."

I really don't like how Schwalb interjects the archer bit in there. It feels forced. Like, Monte Cook-forced. Outside of 4th Edition I have rarely seen players make archers, even with 3rd Edition rangers. He makes it sound commonplace, or that it should be. It sounds more like he is trying to pander to the whiners who did not want to play a ranger (or just multiclass, hybrid, or talk to their fucking DM) and instead wanted a fighter that would basically be the same fucking thing.

"The fighter is the knight, the mercenary, the archer, and the warrior wielding two weapons."

Hey again archer. I like how he slaps it in the middle. Reminds of of that part in the Simpsons where Homer is tryingto buy illegal fireworks.

I am not saying that fighters cannot used ranged weapons (they can in 4th Edition, and lose out on all of a minor benefit), but fighters specifically focused purely on using a bow? This sounds like Schwalb just interjected archer in the list of actual fighter archetypes in the hopes that people would at least overlook it if not accept it. Archers do not make me think of a heavily armored warrior that protects her allies. I think light armor and high mobility.

Like, oh...the ranger, which also no longer has an animal companion or casts divine spells, so...what the fuck is the problem, again? Really the ranged fighter that comes to mind is using her Strength score chucking throwing axes, javelins, and spears. These also have the benefit of being usable with one hand, and I can envision a fighter opening up a battle chucking a throwing axe before drawing her sword and charging in.

"What made the fighter interesting in the previous editions were the choices you made with weapons, armor, and later, feats. Fighter players had a great deal of freedom to build the warrior they wanted to play, whether that warrior was a knight or an archer."

So the fighter was interesting because you got to pick from various weapons that did 1d8, or perhaps 1d10 or even 2d6 damage? Wow. Very compelling. Not as compelling as armor, though; I would start with scale mail, then move up to half-plate or full-plate depending on where I was and how much cash I had. So many options. Why would I ever want a class feature that allows me to go with the weapon style I want, or maneuvers that make my weapon choice actually matter? No, picking my damage die is enough for me.

Sarcasm aside the feats were a kind of class feature patch for the fighter. You picked a weapon you liked and dumped a lot of feats on it in a vain effort to try and keep pace with the numerous other classes that were better than you, and did not have to spend feats to suck. Going for a duel-wielder was an even bigger hassle, especially if you wanted to mitigate the attack penalties by taking two different weapons as they each required their own slew of feats.

No, feats-as-a-feature were bullshit and 4th Edition went a long way ensuring your fighter got what she needed to remain viable without you having to strictly adhere to a build mentality.

"In 4th Edition, the fighter’s focus shifted from total customization and instead grounded the fighter into a particular niche—a role that would continue until the slayer came along in the Essentials products."

The 4th Edition fighter was "locked" into a niche? What...having a larger selection of weapons (as opposed to a handful of "good" choices), class features, feats, and exploits was not enough? What the fuck?

Given that some fighter exploits applied a bonus to one or more weapon categories, this statement is fucking bullshit. Covering attack works with any melee weapon, so if you somehow lose the weapon you are carrying (which happens almost exactly never in any edition), you can still use it with an axe, flail, spear, rock, or your fucking bare hands. Actually at the launch of 4th Edition none of the 1st-level exploits required specific weapons, though tide of iron required a shield, and reaping strike gave you a slightly better benefit if you used any two-hander.

I also like how he says that the fighter was grounded into a niche, even though that the various fighter features and exploits could easily usher you into more of a damage dealer or controller, or just make you damned hard to kill. Hell in Martial Power 2 the fighter finally had a viable unarmed mechanic, and any fighter could go from adding Wisdom to opportunity attacks to chasing a fucker and knocking them down, giving them a lot of mobility.

I am going to quote someone from RPG.net, who mentioned something on this subject that I agree with:

"While it may not be the whole point of the blog, it does present a veritably Straw Man of the 4e fighter.

It points out that the 4e fighter is a defender and (like most defenders) melee-focused. It makes it sound like that's the only thing 4e did with the fighter, force it into a Role (like very other 4e class).

A much more momentous thing happened to the fighter in 4e. It stopped sucking. It became the equal of other classes. It was as good (at least) a defender as the Paladin or Swordmage. It was on the same playing field as casters, able to bring some round-by-round versatility in combat, and some peak-power when really needed. Able to 'nova' in those benighted 5-minute workdays. That balance and near-parity was something the fighter never had before. Never.

And it's not even acknowledged, let alone valued."

"I find myself looking back to the 3rd Edition fighter with a great deal of fondness."

Yeah...being overshadowed by non-fighting classes, having to go toe-to-toe with monsters that could kill you in a full-round action (if they wanted to go toe-to-toe at all), and getting to make the same routine attack over and over again...those were the days. Seriously though, the only reason that you should look back to the 3rd Edition fighter is as a lession to be avoided.

"I liked how a player could customize the fighter in any way he or she wanted."

You mean a one-hander, two-hander, or I guess ranged-guy? Even if you blatantly want to ignore the ranger (even for multiclassing/hybrid purposes) due to the name, and even if you don't want to take lots of bow feats and rely on ranged basic attacks (basically what fighter arrow-attacks where in older editions, but still better) two out of three is not bad, especially given how much more competent and flexible they are.

And, again, there are the six or so class features, two sub-classes (with their own customization options), and exploits. Just throwing that out there...

"As well, a player who wanted to be a damn good archer could just go to the fighter without having to embrace the ranger’s narrative (and attendant features)."

Fuck the narrative. That is a lame excuse. Look at the mechanics; a lightly-armored warrior that could be good at both melee and ranged stuff, which is what I think of when I envision an "archer". A big, tough guy clad in scale or plate mail with a bow? Not so much. As in, not at all.

It feels like that rather than just make a class feature to shut the vocal minority up about their ranged fighters, or trying explain to them how it "okay" to call your class something else, or even just making an entire archer class (that would likely just be a fighter with copy-and-pasted ranger exploits), that they are going to fold and solve a problem that I am not convinced exists.