Welcome to Tabletop Tuesday, a thing I made up because I had a rant about roleplaying games, and it happened to be a Tuesday. In this incredibly irregular feature, we will discuss tabletop gaming of all kinds, from board games and roleplaying to card and miniature games. 

For the first topic, I want to discuss an issue that has been nagging at me for years: What can we do to solve the problem of Fighter classes in D20 roleplaying systems?

The Problem: They Exist

When most people think of an adventurer in Dungeons and Dragons, there is one archetype that always floats to the top. They’re big and burly, and they hit things. None of that magic nonsense, just good old-fashioned bashing. That class is, of course, the Barbarian.

Wait, sorry. I wasn’t talking about someone from the edge of civilization. I mean a tough sort that doesn’t use magic but, you know, came from a city. You know, a Rogue.

Okay, fine; I mean one that wears heavy armor, and…let’s cut to the chase, I am going for Paladin with this one. 

My point is all of the above classes are fighters. But then, for some reason, there is also a class called fighter. And at the moment, Fighters are better than Barbarians with giant axes, and they are better with Rogues with knives, and better than Paladins at sustained damage, and even better than Rangers at bows.

So What?

Let me back up a bit here. I’ve been roleplaying since the second edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Even before I got to sit at a table with others, I played Balder’s Gate and Eye of the Beholder. I’ve made dozens of characters, most recently for the fifth edition, and run campaigns in the fourth edition and Pathfinder (as well as many non-D20 systems). So, I have some idea what I’m talking about here. 

A lot has changed over the years, but one thing hasn’t: Fighters suck. The reason has changed somewhat, however. They have always been boring, but they were also kind of bad in the early days. They started strong but were useless compared to more magical characters by higher levels. This was exacerbated by how unfun they can be to play, as they usually just decide where to stand and who to hit on a turn-by-turn basis.

Much was made of these Fighter problems at the time, and they have done a lot over the editions to try and bring the class into line with all the others at high levels. I won’t get too into the weeds to discuss the specific problems, but it boils down to getting extra attacks that are more likely to hit. It means any martial class will have a hard time keeping up. There are some other classes that can do enough burst damage to challenge them. But no other class does as much consistent damage.

To Paraphrase The Last Heading: Who Cares? Dungeons and Dragons And Pathfinder Are Roleplaying Games.

Right, we all are working together to tell a story. It shouldn’t matter if one class is just the best class. And fighters are balanced out somewhat by a lack of skill points. I know all this, of course, but tell that to my brain. Typically, I create a character around a concept, only to discover that it would work better as a Fighter no matter how thematically aligned my idea is with any class. I still play the objectively worse character, but it’s annoying.

From the GM’s side, I’ve seen my players grow frustrated seeing their Fighter teammates outshine them at the things their class is meant to be the master of. Or even choose to be a Fighter despite wanting to choose a different, more thematic option. Players often feel they have to choose a fighter to keep up, which leaves fewer errant skill points to go around. Without them, creative solutions to problems using your “crafting: cobbler” skill will never come up.

All that said, none of these rules are mandatory, nor does any GM have to challenge their players to the point that they are forced to focus on optimal choices. Many people will try to optimize, but it doesn’t have to ruin your game if someone doesn’t. It can make running a module harder, sure. Still, having different power levels in a group is hardly a dealbreaker. But even if imbalances didn’t matter, a bigger question remains. 

What It Means To Be A Fighter in Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder.

Setting aside mechanics, there is just nothing here from a lore perspective. It’s just a person who hits things. Different subclasses add flavor, but the core class concept is just to be the best at fighting. If that is all they are, then what is the point? Any character you would currently build as a Fighter can be more thematically reproduced with a different class. 

So, if they are mechanically an issue and have zero lore utility, why have Fighters? 

It is much better instead to take any of the features worth keeping and spread them among subclasses. A lot of these options already exist. Hexblades for Warlocks, Bladesingers for Wizards, Bards from the College of Swords, Armorer Artificers, Swashbuckler Rogues, and many more.

This removes the most significant barrier to enjoying these other classes and ensures that each character you play has something to it beyond simply hitting things.

So, In Conclusion. Destroy All Fighters!

I know some people out there will absolutely hate this idea. Setting aside that portion of the Dungeons and Dragons, as well as Pathfinder communities who hate any change, there are, possibly, Fighter fans out there. And if they exist, they would be disappointed. Still, the difference would be for the better. 

Thanks for reading the first (and possibly last?) Tabletop Tuesday! If you love roleplaying games, you’ll enjoy my previous article about the Baldur’s Gate III controversy. And if you love destruction, you can check out this piece on the Saint’s Row reboot. I know it’s a tenuous connection, but I can’t just link to my articles. No matter how deserving they may be.

Let me know in the comments if you are a Fighter fan or agree they are completely pointless! 

The post Tabletop Tuesday: Fixing Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinders Fighters appeared first on Lords of Gaming.