[Quests] Why People Never Pick "Fighter" or "Thief", and Should Anything be Done About it

Bulleted list please.

 

Like, do you want a bulleted list of all of your posts? Is that what you're asking for? Because off the top of my head I don't think you made any other kind of post in this thread.

 

What do you consider to be the things that define a fighter?

EDIT: Either "fighter as a skillset" or "fighter as a character type", but please identify which one you are describing.

EDIT 2: My definitions, roughly:
Fighter as a character type: A character who meets the following criterion:

• Her primary skillset is the fighter skillset

Fighter as a skillset:

• Beating people up in combat.
• Not getting beaten up in return.

 

A fighter fights things as a core concept. In support of this core concept, their abilities as a fighter include tactical insights, arranging the field of battle for best advantage, and understanding weak points. This includes both physical combat, and other arenas of combat, such as social, or political. A fighter is skilled with all weapons, and does not shy away from their use, understanding the offensive capabilities in everything, including and especially their voice or their mind.

A fighter is the hot-headed character who knows who their enemy is, and cannot let them win. They know their goal, they know their weapon, and they know how to lay down the hurt. The exact details of their enemy, weapon, and hurt are unimportant; all that matters is that they feel strongly and are drawn to conflict. You might find a fighter in a forest waging war against goblins, or you might find them on a podium waging war against injustice. Wherever you find a fighter, you will also find their fight.

 

That's a silly requirement.

Like, you can't get skilled at beating people-up without picking up any other skill. Let's go with my previous example: You are currently battling a person you know is extremely skilled at separating your neck from your body. Will you surrender, or run away, or suicidally charging him/her anyway?

Now, let's go further and this person - which is a fighter, by the way - is a complete and total idiot savant, and doesn't understand the meaning of 'not fighting'. So, he loped your head off. Now, other people will avoid him, or hunker down, or what - which is essentially intimidation. Try telling him he is only good at fighting!

Mind you, in most RPG they are not represented as, well, Skills - presumably, the Dev trust the GM to emulate fame and reputation, or there's separate Background stat. In that case, I don't see why Fighter can't leverage their ability to fight well as social tools.

 

Would you consider a character with the following superpowers a fighter?

• Widened Plant Growth
• Summon Plague of Locusts
• Mass Remove Disease
• Contagion
• Mass Induce Pregnancy
• Scrying

How about this character?

• Stabbing people in the face.
• Super-toughness.
• Using armor and shields to defend oneself.

In this case, I am using "skills" in a generic sense, rather than a game-specific sense.

It's not that you can't pick up other skills at all, it's that when skills other than fightering become more important than fightering, fightering ceases to be your primary skill.

You can intimidate people and still be a "fighter", but when intimidating people (without fighting them) becomes your primary method of achieving your goals, "fightering" stops being your primary skillset.

Although... even "is super-good at intimidating people" is probably not very high on my list of preferred character types, and it also falls into the category of VAH.

 

Then what's the point of this debate?

 

That is a good question. I think we're just arguing about terminology now.

I already found what I think is an answer to the original questions:

 

Why yes, those do sound like a few of the many abilities which fall under the fighter skill tree!

Any time you are directly engaging an enemy with your own ability as a character of no particular supernatural power, you are a fighter.

 

You intentionally misquoted me.

How does the edited quote relate to the unedited quote, and what point are you trying to make thereby?

 

A fighter is more than hit things guy. If you want to talk about how nobody should play hit things guy, then fine. But hit things guy is not the fighter.

Nobody should play magic missile guy either.

 

That doesn't answer the first part of the question I asked.

I'll elaborate on why I selected those powers: they're things that seem like they'd be really useful in a war.

 

If you want me to believe that you picked Mass Induce Pregnancy or Widened Plant Growth specifically because you think it's an ability that somebody who had the broad skillset of "be good at war" might have then I'm done believing you're approaching this argument with anything like good faith.

 

"Mass Induce Pregnancy" is useful in war because it helps you grow your population. The better to draft an army from.

 

It occurs to me that part of the problem is the sources for fighter feats.

So why not go for Wuxia? I mean, the protagonists of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, or Hero or House of Flying Daggers clearly aren't wizards or any form of spellcaster, and it would be absurd to claim that they are. Nevertheless, they can run at full sprint across treetops, deflect an entire army's worth of arrows with a flick of a sword, and even use the sword tip to push themselves upward from a still lake surface.

How? Because they're legendary heroes and they're just that good.

 

Kung Fu masters definitely fall into the "superpowers" category, yes.

... at least, once it's understood that you're going to be playing a Kung Fu master and not a D&D Monk.

(Link, because embedding doesn't include url modifiers)

 

I'm not sure if Kung Fu is the right word here, all the people I cited use swords. Or spears, sometimes. And I wouldn't call them superpowers, either, because they didn't get the ability to do these things from being bitten by a radioactive old buddhist monk. They are, you are meant to accept, simply the product of training and dedication.

 

Kung Fu masters can use spears, and do in that movie.

They're superpowers exactly as much as a D&D Wizard's spells (which are also learned through careful training and dedication) are.

 

We get it; according to you, if you're worth having in the party, you're not allowed to call yourself a fighter anymore, because when you were young you were molested by an incompetent fighter or something.

 

There are probably characters that could accurately be described as "fighters" who would be worth having in an adventuring party.

In most quests, however, you play one character.

 

Are we sure we're not just conflating terms with stereotypes? I mean, you can be a fighter without being the Big Stupid Fighter. There are systems that let you have excellent combat competence and swordfighting skills and such while also being, say, an excellent leader or a diplomat or a crafter. Exalted for example; roll up any caste besides a Dawn-caste, mark down one favored skill in Melee and one in Dodge or Resistance, and now you have a competent fighter who also has the talents of a master blacksmith or scholar or leader or thief on the side.

 

"fighter and thief-type character builds" implies, at least to me, characters who fit the stereotypes thereof.

 

People keep arguing that the fighter can do stuff out of combat. The problem is the mage or rogue can do that stuff too. Being a tactician isn't a fighter exclusive trait. Neither is being a leader, or blacksmith.

 

But the opposite is true, right? Making Zenith Exalted exclusively being priest-y run the risk you get ganged by Dragonblooded, Sidereal, or even mortal. So, you pick-up combat side-specialization, at least enough to get by.

 

The more "modern" the setting is in terms of society, the less you generally need personal combat, or any other specific skill, and the more you can safely specialize.

The converse of that is that, in a less "modern" society, like most fantasy settings, or a post-apocalyptic setting, you generally need to be personally good at just about everything you want or need to do.

 

That's a problem with D&D's class system. Every fighter looks pretty much exactly the same -- they're all good with [weapon of choice], they're all useless at social actions aside from intimidating people, and they all have intelligence as a dump stat. I don't need to ask why people don't want to play as that guy, what I want to know is why people don't want to play as Link or Geralt of Rivia or Ezio Auditore -- characters who have a martial specialty but also wide competence in mundane skills. Geralt and Link sometimes use magic as a secondary skill but you would never call them wizards or magic specialists. D&D can only really model that kind of character as a fighter/rogue gestalt class.

 

It's a confluence of a lot of problems.

I would call such characters a "Generalist" or "Jack-of-all-Trades".

Hmm... what's a good example spread of characters?

 

Geralt, at least, isn't either a Generalist or a Jack-of-all-Trades, he's a monster hunter. I think the closest D&D has in its basic classes would be something like a ranger, still a guy who is about putting steel into people he dislikes, but also about picking herbs and doing interesting things with them.

EDIT: D&D is terrible.

 

No.

No, you don't get to take Link away from the "Fighter" classification.

You have wronged so hard you did not right at all.

Link uses all kinds of weapons to their best effect to beat up a wide variety of enemies.

He is THE fighter.