|
Post by geordie on Sept 25, 2009 14:25:54 GMT -6
Fighters are the lamest thing about D&D, so ordinary - most fighter characters could easily be transposed to other systems - there's nothing special about mummy's lickle soldiers. If you really must have..and I shudder at the thought.. combat (there I've said it), bring on the armoured holy guy to cleave the monsterous and undead, or the evil anti-cleric armed with a dagger and foul knowledge. No room for self-centred, one-dimensional neutrals with no inner conflicts or struggles of faith! 'uh when do we get to hit something, it's what we do'yeah, it's all you do - quit whining and play a character of substance. An MU progresses and develops over time - fighters hit things better (yawn). 'doh, I got a stronghold' - yeh, have fun playing house while us real characters are kickin' ass on the outer planes with gods. DMs and referees, I implore you, don't let them resurrect. men and magic...remember...men and magic... fighters...you're just here to hold the magic swords, yeah it's all wand-envy, you 'Iron Heroes' you.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 25, 2009 14:49:41 GMT -6
Kill the Cleric and the Fighter, and bring in the Warlord. Oh, you say you've been stabbed through the chest? Well rub some dirt in it you pansy. Walk it off! There will be plenty of time to heal after these monsters are dead.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 29, 2009 12:34:51 GMT -6
Is geordie's post sarcasm? Does he really think that getting more spells is what makes a character "of substance"? Because if that's what he really thinks I'm pretty sure Lancelot, Tacitus, Genghis Kahn and El Cid would like to have a word with you.
Besides, Wizards need wands because they can't kill a dragon with their frickin' bare hands. Pansies.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 29, 2009 13:45:05 GMT -6
An interesting discussion. I think that if you have a party of characters you need a variety of talents, so if everyone is a spellslinger then you tend to get bashed by orcs and trolls and the like. If everyone is a fighter then you tend to get bashed by some of the more nasty supernatural critters. A mix is the clear answer. Howerver, in solo play a pure fighter is not much fun. Perhaps this is geordie is thinking about. For solo play either allow mulit-classing options or go to a system like RuneQuest where every character can attempt a little bit of everything. So, yes in many ways fighters are lame. On the other hand, they form the foundation on which most adventures must rely, so unless you're planning on just using NPC hireling soliders the fighter needs to stay. Just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 29, 2009 14:05:35 GMT -6
I'm a pretty big 4E fan, I admit, but I also really like OD&D quite a bit. That said, I think that the two editions could really benefit from some more cross-pollenation. High level fighters should be mowing through monsters with whirlwind attacks while shouting warcries that bolster allies and stun enemies. I like how 4E handles this, but I think it would be good to rear the rules back and simplify them.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Sept 29, 2009 17:10:05 GMT -6
Allow one attack per level and per round for fighter, in a chainmail style, and you got allready the whirlwind attack.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 29, 2009 17:58:58 GMT -6
Allow one attack per level and per round for fighter, in a chainmail style, and you got allready the whirlwind attack. *checks books* Huh. See, I'm very new to this game, so I didn't realize that. Hmmm... so "Superheroes" penalize enemy morale rolls? That's pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Sept 29, 2009 17:59:57 GMT -6
I have to disagree that the fighter is a weak or boring character. The humble fighter is the backbone of D&D and the perfect character class for brand new players to use in order to pick up the basics of the game. Conan, Odysseus, Porthos, King Arthur, Heracles, Moonglum, Fafhrd, Tempus Thales, Solomon Kane, and the great-granddaddy of all monster-bashers, Beowulf, were all fighters.
To relate my own experiences, the first four D&D characters I played were all fighters. My first, Volsak Volarsson, was a huge Viking to often got into trouble in civilized society because he did not realize his own massive strength. My second, Kyril Bey was a noble prince who came from an ancient kingdom where everybody was insane except for the ruling family. He left the kingdom to find a cure for his people only to find that when he returned from his adventures a decade later his entire kingdom had mysteriously vanished right down to the crudest stone hut. My third, Khom, was a supremely ordinary looking fellow who had taken part in almost every significant battle in the realms of Blackmoor and had ultimately pierced the inner sanctum of the Egg of Coot, although the Egg him/her/itself eluded him. My fourth, Avra Taan, was a steadfast dwarf warrior who left his mountain home to travel the kingdoms of Man to bring home a wife, preferrably an elf lass in a chainmail bikini. While a mighty warrior, he was often taunted by other dwarves because he could not grow a long, thick beard as was often mistaken as a gnome by others of his race.
They were all great characters that I had a lot of fun with. No character is ever boring; it's all in the way that you choose to play them.
Doc
|
|
|
Post by geordie on Sept 29, 2009 18:07:47 GMT -6
I have to disagree that the fighter is a weak or boring character. The humble fighter is the backbone of D&D and the perfect character class for brand new players to use in order to pick up the basics of the game. Conan, Odysseus, Porthos, King Arthur, Heracles, Moonglum, Fafhrd, Tempus Thales, Solomon Kane, and the great-granddaddy of all monster-bashers, Beowulf, were all fighters. To relate my own experiences, the first four D&D characters I played were all fighters. My first, Volsak Volarsson, was a huge Viking to often got into trouble in civilized society because he did not realize his own massive strength. My second, Kyril Bey was a noble prince who came from an ancient kingdom where everybody was insane except for the ruling family. He left the kingdom to find a cure for his people only to find that when he returned from his adventures a decade later his entire kingdom had mysteriously vanished right down to the crudest stone hut. My third, Khom, was a supremely ordinary looking fellow who had taken part in almost every significant battle in the realms of Blackmoor and had ultimately pierced the inner sanctum of the Egg of Coot, although the Egg him/her/itself eluded him. My fourth, Avra Taan, was a steadfast dwarf warrior who left his mountain home to travel the kingdoms of Man to bring home a wife, preferrably an elf lass in a chainmail bikini. While a mighty warrior, he was often taunted by other dwarves because he could not grow a long, thick beard as was often mistaken as a gnome by others of his race. They were all great characters that I had a lot of fun with. No character is ever boring; it's all in the way that you choose to play them. Doc Yes, but the same goes for Clerics is all I'm saying (after reading the other threads)
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Sept 29, 2009 18:39:44 GMT -6
I don't think the Cleric is weak or boring. I sometimes have issues with the metaphysics implied by the class. Dropping the Fighter doesn't solve that.
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Sept 29, 2009 21:10:38 GMT -6
Call me a traditionalist or a hopeless nostalgic, but I remain very fond of the four principal classes as cemented by the publication of Supplement I: Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, and Thief. I don't find a one of them uninteresting.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 30, 2009 7:58:30 GMT -6
Fighters are the lamest thing about D&D, so ordinary - most fighter characters could easily be transposed to other systems - there's nothing special about mummy's lickle soldiers. So you need external validation to feel special, do you? If you really must have..and I shudder at the thought.. combat (there I've said it), You shudder at the thought of combat? You know this is a Dungeons & Dragons forum right, where you venture into dungeons and fight dragons? No room for self-centred, one-dimensional neutrals with no inner conflicts or struggles of faith! Is this projection? Who said Fighters have to be self-centered or neutral? Aren't magic-users usually the self-centered ones? And who says Clerics have struggles of faith? I bet many of them are quite fanatically certain in their beliefs and are never troubled by conscience. 'uh when do we get to hit something, it's what we do' "Uh, when do we get to Turn Undead and cast Find Traps? It's what we do." 'doh, I got a stronghold' - yeh, have fun playing house while us real characters are kickin' ass on the outer planes with gods. Good luck with that "kicking ass" without a Fighter to protect you. fighters...you're just here to hold the magic swords, yeah it's all wand-envy, you 'Iron Heroes' you. Wands are magic sword envy, but their slim willow shafts are a sorry substitute for forged steel.
|
|