A Good Enough History of the Fighter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 січ 2022
- Fightman, there's no need to feel down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
►Join my Discord if you wanna be a cool dude: / discord
►I stream on Twitch every Tuesday/Saturday at 6pm (EST): / davvychappy
►Hey! Give me money!:
/ davvychappy
►Check me out on Twitter: / davvychappy
►Check out my video editor, Emma, on Twitter: / die_namic_rpg
►Check out my thumbnail artist, Aaron Polk: www.aaronpolk.art/
►Check me out in Instagram: / davvychappy
Song: Kingdom of Bards - Adrian Von Ziegler - Розваги
For all of you “um, actually” people, the basic set *was* meant to get players to 3rd level and then switch them to AD&D. However, as time went on, they both drifted apart in rules updates, and four years later, they decided to just make them their own separate games by releasing expansions for the Basic Set.
Managed to click this video just in time to see this, neato
There are two different versions of Basic. 1977 and 1981. This video references the 1977 as the intro to AD&D. But doesn't mention the 1981 version which led to BECMI.
Both Davvy Chappy are right and wrong at the same time. It took all of 10 seconds to research so I don't know why everyone didn't bother themselves.
@@spartandud3 I'm not wrong for choosing not to cover a later revision. It was just a bit of trivia about Basic D&D.
@@DavvyChappy Fair enough but in the future clarifying which Basic set will (or should) avoid confusion in the comments.
I think the biggest reason you might run into the "um, actually"s is because most people within that community started with Moldvay basic, and not Holmes basic. Of course you don't have to specify if it doesn't suit your fancy, it barely matters one way of the other. It's also a fun fact that between 77 and 81 is when Dave Arneson sued TSR, which is kinda the starting place of basic being a separate(and superior,jk) line, do to TSR not really wanting to put too many hands on it.
The fighter has always be that guy who brought a knife to a gun fight, somehow beat the gun, and Clint Eastwood his way towards the sunset.
Now I wanna play a cowboy… but just with knives.
@@awesomechainsaw ooo~ and they could be so deadly accurate that the fighter can snipe a enemy with knife?
@@patrickdees5256 I mean looking into it. It’s super unoptimal. Daggers are only really intended for Rouges. And your missing out on a-lot of damage.
If your gonna do it optimally. Maybe a Swashbuckler with a Fighter dip.
But also a dude who chucks 7 knives all at once like a mad man. Sounds so cool who cares about optimization?
@@awesomechainsaw counter point. Which is more fun. Building an unoptimal character to see the character be the underdog, or an optimal character who is guaranteed to succeed?
@@awesomechainsaw You can never have too many knives, as the saying goes.
Fighter: Tirelessly saves lives, serves lords of the land, and works to grow in prestige enough to be granted a fort and title.
Wizard: Summons a magnificent mansion from thin air when it's time to take a nap.
I think the real take away from this video is that martial classes should get homeownership as a way to balance the infinite possibilities of magic.
second this, using kingdoms and warfare from mat covile is the closest thing
@@okamiv5 or play 2e instead I'd genuinely recommend trying older editions if you've been playing 5e for a while. Especially if you dislike 5e being kind of easy.
@@boinkmcbingo8890 problem is that while 2e is rather interesting, it can also be a quite unweildy system and it's philosophy and approach to most things is so entirely alien from what 5e is that one may be overwhelmed making the switch. Very different tastes
This wouldn't work and could be worse than it is now, not everyone would like to deal with a fort or wait for the one fighter do so, also not every campaign can assimilate one or more player owning fortresses
Better rest mechanics and more interesting mechanics that are not subclass dependant could do the job in my opinion
@@christhiancosta1844 the measures you are describing can only ever adress the difference between a fighter and a wizard in terms of personal combat abillity (where fighters often are not far behind), and does not adress the wizard's domination of utillity and logistics. Summoning demons from another realm and binding them to your will, reanimating corpses, putting endless wards and magical protections on your lair, creating permanent structures via wall of stone + stone shape + mighty fortress + continual flames, peering through time and space with divination spells and transporting yourself through that space, creating clones and similacrum of themselves, getting free money with true polymorph. Becomming a mighty king with vassals who give you taxes, who can spy and gather information for you, who can build defenses for you etc would challenge this out-of-combat dominance that wizards have, giving them a mundane version of the wizard's infinite supernatural flexibillity
The fighter is in my opinion a really good class for making a great backstory
And at the same time, it lets you go really barebones with the backstory and still come out of the fray with a killer set of war stories to tell the tykes.
@@shinrafugitives3880 it's the most free backstory options, you can be anyone you want
Backstory wise, fighter characters are like blank canvases. It can be whatever you want it to be as long as it involves fighting of some kind. In my opinion no other class is as versatile in their backstory.
"It no longer had to spend time tending to a vassal state." I'm sorry, man, but that's one of the most fun things about fighter - you always have built in adventure hooks, downtime activities, and cool stuff to get involved in. Like always. It takes a little effort to hook a wizard into the world (spell research being a mostly solo activity), and rogues' downtime options are mostly rumor-fishing unless you've started a thieves' guild (in which case your DM loves you). But fighters? They get to do everything from high-level politics, to finishing off the wars your party accidentally started.
It does have a pretty major downside, though: everyone at your table has to be on-board with "Domain Level" play, or they're bored in the kitchen while you & the DM discuss taxation policy.
That said, some versions of D&D (such as Basic, in the form of the Rules Cyclopedia) went hard on domain-level play. A fighter might become a lord with their own castle, but a spellcaster might build their own wizard's tower & start unleashing alchemical abominations upon the land.
Domain play is cool as hell, IMO, but I also play Paradox games so what do I know.
Having played a LOT of 3.5 I can say that the fighters copious feats actually ended up RESTRICTING their versatility more than enhancing.
On paper you got so many choices! In function you had to chain together so many feats to be good at anything that you had pigeonhole yourself.
Trip focused? Multiple feats.
Grappling? Like six feats.
And none of the things you could be good at scaled well into the late game.
So you'd burn all of these fears to be good at ONE mediocre thing.
Or you tried to be a generalist, to actually be versatile, and you ended up being bad at everything except "hit guy with stick".
The only fairly consistent builds at all levels was a pole arm aoo build. Or a power attack build.
Pathfinders take on the Fighter is much better I find, especially if you use The Elephant in the Room ruleset to remove or change a lot of the feat taxes. You can get some legitimately insane fighter builds, with no two being the same.
@@canaryinacoalmine1759 All of those things he mentioned are enabled by the Battlemaster subclass in 5e.
@@canaryinacoalmine1759 No, they really didn't. In 3/3.5/pf, any character can attempt to trip another, regardless if they're a fighter with the whole trip feat chain and armed with a tripping weapon, or a wimpy wizard with little to no martial ability. The former will be better at tripping than the latter, but that doesn't mean the latter isn't able to try whenever they want
I mean, the actual pointbof 3.5 fighter is to springboard any PRC you may want, and for that it worked perfectly. Almost nothing in 3.5 is good single classed for 20 levels anyway, and even what it is good is better whit PRCs.
This video was just good enough. Not great not bad , just good enough.
I rate it a solid 4/10
Ah, Fighterman. The good old standard of classes. The ol' vanilla ice cream with toppings of your choice.
And somehow ended up better then it’s off spring not called the paladin in 5e, it’s about on par with Tasha’s ranger
Ah yes a true staple, good for newbs and vets alike, and nothing says fun like Action Surge everything! Thanks for the content Davvy!
Counterspell and Fireball are more fun to say especially when the DM doesn't expect it, tbh I like the fighter but spellcasting is super fun
@@xcalixus eldritch knight: may I introduce myself, also all the vets who’ve read the books enough realize all the casters outclass the non casters by about 3/4 of mile except fighters
My fighter always eats chili, that way his second wind is extra powerful.
So the common homebrew of giving fighters maneuvers regardless of subclass is definitely a good one, and I have my own simple easy to use version of it which makes the mechanics fit seemlessly into the base fighter.
That's literally one of the best way to fix the whole bland flavor of a fighter from a Mechanical level.
However I do recognize that we as player in one point in our lives mostly just pay attention to a mechanical character than a character we want to play as.
@@ancientdarkmagic1409 The play style of a character is one of the most important things for me because I always want to feel like I am having an impact no matter what I do. That’s why I like playing paladins because they are great both in and out of combat with a ton of fun role playing to be had they are a wet dream for any power gamers who love role playing.
I personally want to see rogues, and barbarians also get maneuvers. Imagine a barbarian Maneuver which let you do critical damage, but gave you disadvantage on attacks. What about a rogue Maneuver which let you teleport behind someone sneak and teleport away again for a nothing personal kid moment.
I don’t think paladins and rangers should get maneuvers since they have spell casting to back them up. Additionally, having the eldritch knight, and arcane trickster use maneuvers for casting spells would add an interesting dynamic to them which no other class would have.
About the end: camping in the dungeon was meant to be extremely dangerous. Hourly wandering monster rolls were made by the DM to determine if a band of orcs or what not would show up to cause mayhem.
That description of Short Rests slew me.
I kinda liked how fighters got these cool movement abilities in 4e. Like one of them let you attack everything in a 30ft line, ending at the end of the line. I've seriously considered making these available for fighters in my games with some sort of short-rest limited usage
Try looking into Spheres of Might system. If you play Pathfinder it's even better as with SoM it's both better and faster.
People complain about fighters being boring, but there's actually so much you can do with them RP wise and in combat. We have literally all of human history to pull on for armour, weapons and techniques, not to mention all the characters in media. Sure, they're often not amazing, but they're always reliable, and sometimes all you need is a bit if reliability and a sharp stick.
You don't even need the sharp stick, remember all of human history. The dude with a sneer on his face and a six-shooter on his hip. Also a fighter. The fur clad horseman that treats his steed better than his friends and wields a bow like none seen in these lands...also a fighter.
People who call fighter boring have never actually put any effort into making a cool one.
@@joelsasmad bonus points if the fighter does trips, stuns, disarms, sunders and throws the bad guys into each other.
@@joelsasmad legit, Everytime I see someone play a caster they have their go-to magical spells and cantrips... Toll the dead, firebolt, frostbite, spells too, depending on what they think the enemy is not resistant to...
It's not that different from just being a martial class tbh
@@elgatochurro "Eldritch Blast"
I really want a subclasses for fighter with a big house as a feature now...
Me to.
That would be nice. I wonder how it will be called.
@@user-hs1xb9tv6e American Dreamer
Give me a keep or lordship instead of indomitable.
I'm guessing one of the reasons they took that away is because it is a feature that is very situational in an odd way. Are you adventuring withing walking distance of your summer home? Great, let's all sleep in comfy beds and have my servants prepare a nice hot meal for us. Are you adventuring anywhere else? Well, that means this feature is useless.
I do like the idea of owning a keep or house, I just think it should be more something that the characters are able to purchase and invest in with the staggering amounts of swag that they pilfer every adventure, because that implies that the campaign in question will allow them to actually return from time to time.
The fighter has really grown on me over the last couple of months, it's such a fun class. I really respect people just not dealing with any magic and simply being incredibly gifted at fighting. It leaves a lot of room for unique flavor should players wish to seek it out!
There's a 3rd party supplement by MCDM studios that gives fighters back their landowning privileges.....and Let's other classes do that too if they want. I have it and it's pretty cool. It's called Strongholds and Followers.
If you want to be a 4E Fighter in 5E you basically need the Battlemaster and Cavalier subs at the same time. You can sort of achieve it with the Tasha's fighting style that gives maneuvers combined with the feat that gives maneuvers.
I would say, as part of the description for the 3 and 3.5 fighter. There was also an attempt to break off pieces of the fighter into numerous separate classes. Including two different samurai, a knight class which were mostly just the fighter with some feats replaced with specific often weak features.
And the one, the only, Warblade. Which is largely seen as a first attempt at the 4e Fighter that was awesome, but sadly controversial for the time.
Something you forgot to mention is in the original DnD, Fighters were also the only ones that could use magic swords; which were exceptionally powerful in that edition.
Elves and Dwarves could, too
Monks and Assassins could too
I am playing a fighter in a one shot that is getting stretched into two games, I have taken great pride in the fact that I am currently the only character who made an attack roll yet.
One of the things that need to bring back is not level capping at 20th. Multiclassing used to be the best way to make your character.
Small correction. In first edition, the paladin didn't necessarily have to be the good guy, as much as being the honorable guy.
As you said, early alignment was more of a slider between law and chaos, so a paladin could be evil, as long as they stuck to the code of chivalry.
Love to see this for bard, monk and a greater look into what ad&d was
3:30 "The awkward thing about Basic D&D is it was to get new players up to level 3 and then switch them to Advanced D&D"
This is wrong. D&D and AD&D were different games put out by different companies (yes, there was a lawsuit). After reaching level 3 you then bought the "Expert Set", for levels 4-14, Companion Set for 14-24, and Masters for 24-36, and Immortals past that.. That system is sometimes referred to as BECMI for that reason, or Muldvay for it's major writer/creator.
The Expert set also came with the classic adventure "The Isle of Dread".
Got to admit it: you're right. :)
Well, you're talking about BECMI, which was the 3rd edition of Basic. Chappy is probably talking about the 1st, and his only mistake is that back in '77 AD&D hadn't been published, and the game you were supposed to transition to was actually OD&D.
As for the "different companies" nugget, no. That was never the case. What are you even talking about?
I started with 3.5. My kids got me into 5e. Ive been explaining the difference. Thus helped alot
My interpretation of early D&D was the Wizard got Big Spells, but the Fighter got a small Army. New versions of the game simply aren't balanced around a player setting up 20 archers on the ridge, for when the thief kites the BBEG, but that's old school D&D. You didn't waltz up to the enemy town and challenge the chief, you set up a siege, and threatened to burn the fief to the ground if he didn't hand over the MacGuffin.
I honestly have to thank you Mr. Chappy. Because of that ending, it has made me design a homebrew Fighter subclass that builds stuff. Thanks for the inspiration my guy!
I think this is pretty cool and also gives a really nice frame of reference for people who are newer to the hobby to understand where their favorite classes come from
Loved this one! I hope you round out the series!
This is fantastic, can't wait to see you do the rest of the classes!
I am so very excited to see more, I am here for this new historian Chappy
There’s just something to be said about a high level fighter turning into a food processor on an enemy being held by a hold monster or hold person spell…. Then using action surge to really pile on the damage lol…. Never gets old
Very cool, I would love to see more of these history of classes videos
Good bideo
As a class, the fighter and the cleric have remained pretty much the same since AD&D...The clerics have just always been better. (We own all of you. The fighter is nothing without us, and the rest of you only continue to exist because you amuse us somehow.)
GLORY ONTO THE CLERICS☆
@@thegloriouswizard5270 YES! GIVE PRAISE (and the majority of the loot) TO WE WHO CONTROL THE FORCES OF LIFE AND DEATH!
@@clericofchaos1 May this humble Wizard keep this spellbound, and donate the rest onto the Holy Cleric and recieve protection and friendship?
@@thegloriouswizard5270 Yes my child. Leave everything else of value as an offering and go your way with the blessings of CHAOS!...I mean friendship.
@@clericofchaos1 what’s your opinion on artificer?
In 2nd edition, Rangers also started with 2 hit dice! at 1st level, instead of 1, but it was a D8 instead of a D10 (that the Fighter and the Paladin got).
But … if you had a high con you would get bonuses to that extra die, so it was technically possible to have 24 hit points at first level. And if you did have a 18 con (+4 hit points per die) it was often worth it to be a Ranger if you met the other requirements as it would make the early game a lot more survivable.
I rolled two 18's my first ever game and went with a Paladin with 18/97 strength (jammy bastard).
That's the other difference, warrior types if they had 18 strength got to roll a percentile dice and add that as a stat.
So there was 18 strength, then the percentage range was broken down into a series of ranges, which got bonuses to hit and damage.
At 18/00 (18/100) you got +3 to hit and +6 damage, which _was a big deal_ back in those days without feats, specialisations and other bonuses.
Well that was intreasting. Hope you will make more of those videos with the other classes.
This was a neat video, would love to see more like it.
5:34
I know the guy in the blue t-shirt in the background.
Now I get to let him know he was in a davvy chappy video.
Oh yeah. THIS is the history lesson I like! More of this, please!
Niiice!
In order: Monk, Barbarian, Ranger.
Fighter is a fine class, I just wish it emphasized more options. Sub-classes of Battle Master and Matt Mercer's Gunslinger are fun to play because you have choices to make instead of just "I swing stick." BM has the equivalent of status effects / tipping the scales in your favor and Gunslinger feels like a risk/reward playstyle that excites me. Poor Champion. I want higher crit but not at the expense of being able to use my brain cells each turn.
The only problem I have with the fighter class is that it doesn't put the weapon inside of the shield like how Roman gladiators do. Having a short sword tucked away on the shield gives me options. And it looks cool.
Sounds like an equipment thing and not a fighter thing.
Saving Dragons and slaying fair maidens
As a person playing a fighter with a suboptimal build in a 3.5 campaign..i felt this in my soul.
Great video, please make more of this kind, maybe leaning a bit more into how some of the most popular prestige classes, subclasses and character options shaped the meta and public perception for a certain class.
Like in the early days of 5e (and arguably even now) Bear Totem Barbarian is so strong that a lot of people see the Barbarian as the perfect class for tanking despite the existence of other classes more dedicated to the task and the efforts of WotC to release more diverse subclasses for the Barbarian to incentivize other kinds of playstyles. Or how Fighters can feel relatively bland in 5e, thus people choosing Battle Master or Eldritch Knight to have more options to choose from in combat and WotC releasing some very peculiar subclasses that mix magic powers into the Fighter's options, like in the case of Rune Knight and Echo Knight, which turn the Fighter into "that guy that hits stuff in a really weird way". I'm curious of what people thought of each class based on the prevalence of certain combinations.
Going through the History and Design Philosophy of D&D through looking at some core like the Fighter makes a lot of sense and is something I didn't even know I wanted!!!
Can't wait for you to do this for other classes! Especially the wizard
I like the land-owning aspect, actually. My first time playing a Fighter in 5e, which was also my first online D&D experience, involved being a noble (knight) whose attendance in the story was a product of the current governor, her pops, getting lost on the other side of some fancy interdimensional portal - since she's definitely not in any position to take over for him, the logical thing to do is go get him, return him home and then use the harrowing experience to reinvigorate her desire to learn everything she possibly can about politics and land-owning so she can succeed him and help the country not fall apart like it was gradually about to during the campaign. The idea of managing your settlement and being entrusted with the care of all these citizens lends a certain humanity to the goings-on, I feel. Your party members can even help out as advisors or other specialty roles, perhaps, and I get the feeling there's plenty of room for quests to start with one of your footmen bursting through the doors frantically blabbering about some new threat.
OD&D + Chainmail Fighting-Man Best Fighter
Fighting capacity was multiple attacks and the Fantasy Combat table could see them go toe to toe with a Dragon and win.
Once they were Heroes or Super Heroes ; They gave morale bonus to their retinue, and eventually would call for a morale check against their foes just from being present of the field, and even ignore non simultaneous hits against them in any given round. They also had the right to joust, with unique mechanics.
I think Gary tried to carry over as much of Chainmail as he could to later editions. Too bad the morale bonus and multiple attacks against weak opponents were phased out pretty quickly. I’d love to do a campaign using only Chainmail and the original three pamphlets, ignoring the ‘alternate’ combat stuff in favor of the Chainmail matrices but streamlined and rewritten. I’ve started the work several times but never got far...,
@@russellharrell2747 has a looksee at Spellcraft and Swordplay and Faerie Tales and Folklore A roleplayers guide to Mythology Earth. They are two takes on a Chainmail based RPG.
The first still sticks with a lot of d6s the later rationalizes it to fit d20s
@@Vasious8128 awesome! I’ll check that out
less than a minute after this is posted, i came to deliver an important message.
balls.
Legit short rests should be 30 minutes and the “light activity” portion codified to make it more mechanically understandable instead of relying on the DM being hyper observant. Also if fighting happens have the short rest just take longer depending on the rounds of a fight that interrupts it, like 5 extra minutes of rest a round.
Also the fatigue mechanic needs to be reintroduced as lesser exhaustion for stuff like the berserker and mechanics that can be managed with short rests and make dungeon crawls and exploration have some meat on the bone with tangible mechanics for tiredness.
Yes please this was great
Fighting Man sounds like some kind of low rent superhero.
Fighting Man, Fighting Man
Does whatever a fighter can
I have been conditioned so recognize all the wonderful DCC art that gets around. Specifically here at 0:57
Not be the "um, actually" guy, but Weapon Specialization was actually introduced in earlier versions of the game than 2e, and arguably was better in them. 2e after awhile started handing it out to other classes like candy, pretty much making the Fighter pointless as a single-class. At the end of 4e, they did add a "beat stuff up Fighter" in the Slayer, but he was dumb as a box of rocks and only did one thing. Hit stuff. Harder.
Thank you for the video.
Well done Davvy.
Very nice. Are we getting these for the rest of the classes?
It is almost a good enough fighter story except why have you not mentioned the biggest issue about fighters - Linear Fighters vs Quadratic Magic Users. It is the reason that the fighters in AD&D had the 18/% strength score. It is the reason there were always so many more weapons to try to support them. Sorta Important to note even so I will let others point out the rest and give you a C+.
The fact that Davvy used a Fighterpl (Darks Souls youtuber) thumbnail, as a dnd fighter blows my mind...
THANK YOU FOR ACTUALLY DISCUSSING HOW FIFHTERS ARE BUILD YOUR OWN CLASS!
Too many people look at it and are like "wow it doesn't have many features compared to other classes." Not realizing you have to put the work in yourself to make rhem interesting instead of being handed a cool pile of powers
I didn't know MOST of that info. The one thing I think I know that you glossed over is that I have heard that in one of the oldest editions the sexism was more than just linguistic in that female characters got some ability penalties.
Iirc, it went both ways, females had higher mental stats but lower physical ones.
Another benefit the fighter received was better combat tables basically they were more likely to hit a certain AC than any other class. They also progressed in level quicker than other classes. Also saving throws were class dependent. By homogenizing the classes this has fallen to the wayside. Now the fighter might be more likely to hit purely by attribute bonuses( and perhaps feats). And with lots of DMs switching to giving levels at event points, that rapid progress is also stymied. Armor made a huge difference in AC ( somewhat obviously) whereas now there are classes that have very good AC with no armor because… well because. Even multiclass would be leery of wearing heavier armor because they came with minuses to dexterity bonuses and skills; thieves skills were heavily ( pun intended) affected by armor types. Basically guaranteeing that only fighters had great ACs. Second place going to clerics.
The other classes could aspire to property ownership too. Mages got towers, priests got temples, thieves got guilds, and Druids and Monks got to be heads of their order.
Yay class history videos
A good overview, but you left out two important developments in 2E: kits (proto-prestige classes) and the hot mess that was the Player's Option books, (which included proto-feats).
the editions may change but one thing stays the same
being martial ain't much, but it's honest work. you don't get the overt flashiness that casters enjoy but you're not there to be flashy and get attention. you're there to help who you care about and occasionally also the ones you don't
Just a small correction Davvy, the Short rest mechanic was introduced in 4e :)
Great video tho, hope to see more like thaf
With some important differences.
The 4e short rest is a reasonable 5 minutes, instead of the nonsensical 1 hr.
Also, everybody wants to short rest in 4e because everyone has encounter powers that need it to recharge, unlike 5e where some classes are begging their party to short rest while others don't give a damn.
@@DocEonChannel i think one hours makes far more sense than 5 minutes, it's some time you're taking to repair gear, recharge super powers and even heal.
Having to beg for rests is a problem with uncooperative party members, not the mechanic itself.
As a comment on Fighting Man...that kind of came from the other sources of things for what led up to Chainmail. A lot of pulps such as ERB's universe would refer to a lot of warrior types as the fighting men as a generic term, often when there's mixes there
I had fighter/barbarian/ ranger/ ocult slayer with dual wielding, monkey grip and all the cleave.
I’d kill for a house subclass that let me build a base and get a Magnificent Mansion style door I could put on things that leads to my house.
Short rests should be just long enough to complete a song of rest-change my mind.
Is this a new series you’re starting, I am a new sub so I’m just asking so i know if i need to watch older things
PF1's history with the fighter is pretty neat. At first it started out as one of the worst classes, requiring a ton of gamesense to build its feats right and almost always being worse than ranger in feat heavy builds or barbarian or paladin in feat light builds. And the less said about the gishes the better. Not helping matters was not only being light on features but mid-to-high level features were often wastes.
Later on however fighter got some new toys letting it trade out the wasted features for better stuff like a hefty will save. Paizo also printed out powerful feats that listed one of its features as a preq. These helped get fighter enough to get it to a respectable place.
And then there's PF2 which said fuck it started the fighter with expert in all weapons and made it one of two classes to get to legendary proficiency in weapons. This is on top of its exclusive feats having powerhouse options alongside free Shield Block and being the only class with completely free access to Attack of Opportunity. It's kind of a beast.
excited for the new fighter subclass : the Landlord.
I personally love the 5e Fighter. But I kind of wish they had abilities that gave them more option to do in the battle field other than "Hit stuff." Maybe by giving them less battle manuvers than what a battle Master would have. Or maybe depending on the weapon that they are using there are special atta ks they can make a certain amount of times per short rest.
When will my runeknight get a giant library to stomp around in saying "Fee fi Foo Fum"
Can you do a video like this for the other classes?
Davvy is talking about 5e in the past tense and now I'm scared he knows something I don't.
3:43 basic D&D was not made you get you to level 3 in order to get you to advanced D&D. These were two different games. Yes they were both D&D, but it was a confusing time in D&D where they were literally two different games. Basic went on to expert, which after enough levels took you to the companion set, which lead to the master set, which finally lead to immortals set. Advanced was just advanced. Good video, some wrong info. Thanks Davvy
Man, I really miss the whole "you get a army at 9th lv" thing. Was completely useless in dungeon crawls (FYI you got 1 captain of medium lv, asmall unit of specialized squad like 5 mounted knights or 10 beserkers, ect, and 100 0 lv warriors like pikemen and archers. All opinions were either randomly rolled or DM chose) but was cool that you meat-head fighter would become a lord or lady. Having a keep was fun, too. I remember our group really getting invested in the place. Alchemy lad for the mage, holy chapel for the cleric and a thick vault to keep our treasure in to discourage the thief
Them’s fighting words!
Great video! Do the Cleric now please.
Fighters in 1st and 2nd addition Advanced D&D got more attacks as they leveled. Attacks/Round 1/1, 2/3, 2/1, 3/5 I don't recall if the end resulted in 3attacks/1round or if it ended at 3/5 which meant that you could take 3 attacks in one round out of 5 and the others were 2 per round. The 2/3 meant you could take 2 attacks every 3 rounds and the rest were 1 attack every round. Because of this and the penchant for collecting the best armor and weapons a Fighter often saved the day in tough encounters especially if he kept the healer alive. AD&D also added options for weapon speed, size, length, and reaction with the weapon if your group wanted to play around with it. Ranged weapons often got #of attack bonuses or restrictions based on loading speeds,
Cleric. Fighter. Magic-User. Thief.
Druid,, Paladin, Ranger, Illusiinist, Assassin.
Bard & Monk for the uber-nerds who read the Appendix, and would be summarily murdered by DMs that didn’t want to be bothered reading the Appendix.
T’was the best of times, t’was the worst of times.
Pathfinder 1st edition has some nice archetypes that are really strong for fighters. Looking at you weaponmaster
And then we have Pathfinder 2e Figher. That is like the 5e Fighter. But more Fighter.
Yeah, Fighters are fun to play in Pf2e.
Do one on the Paladin
....great now ALL i want is a fighter subclass entirely baswd on land ownership. Thanks davy... 🏠
I can’t think of any better metaphor then our overlords taking away our generation’s ability to own a house.
Honestly Fighter is my favorite class in 5e and OSR games lol.
The one thing I liked about Pillars of Eternitys world-building was the fact that there are multiple different kinds of Fighters that resembles a sort of homage to the legacy of chainmail: one fighter could be the generic fighter, one could be a range attacker that uses flintlocks to counter wizards and another could be a moving fortress that knocks the enemy down who takes most of the hits. The game feels like it's what would have happened if Chainmail decided to do something new with fantasy
I pretty much exclusively make Fighters. I've also been playing for about 20 years. Why you might ask, would I make mostly fighters? Because fighter is so vague... so devoid of expressed text flavor that I can make it whatever I want. It and Wizard are my two most played classes.
4th edition saved the fighter.
5th edition refined the fighter to please all parties.
Hit stuff good: Champion
Crazy wild stuff: Battle Master
Mage Warrior: Eldritch Knight
And so much more!!
davster chapster
I give this history video a 4/10, banana man.
Can you do the wizard next?