Please kill this Cow.
The Fighter.
No not the class, the name. For the love of all that is holy rename to Warrior. I mean you say Barbaian you get an image. Wizard you get an image. Bard, Sorcerer, Cleric (though maybe prist would be better), every class you get a classical image. But when your playing and your new player or worse Girlfirend asks what your playing the Fighter is the only one they have no iconic image of what your talking about. I understand its supposed to be generic so you can be playing a Knight or a Rider of Rohan or whatever, but really Fighter? I Fight like Fighting men do. Lets call a spade a spade, and Fighter a Warrior, that has just as much iconic feel as saying I'm a Wizard. Maybe someone will see Harry Poter, or Gandolf, or that guy from OZ but they have an image. When you say Fighter however you get Rocky or Raging Bull, not Gimli.
I know its a sacred cow, and I know its late and I haven't slept in 26 hours, but realy lets get rid of the name. Its the one thing I think the guys who came up with D'n'D really fumbled the ball with.
Who's with me?
I get Rocky Balboa.
And those guys in Hawaii SHOULD still be the Rainbow Warriors... June Jones changing the names so high school boys wouldn't be scared off by the rainbow part...
Please kill this Cow.
The Fighter.
No not the class, the name. For the love of all that is holy rename to Warrior.
Who's with me?
I'm with you. I've always felt that "fighter" was a closer synonym for "combatant", which each character class is. "Warrior" resonates better to the ear, and as you say, to the imagination. The fact that this would also necessitate the renaming of the NPC class would not deter me in the least, though it might our dear Venture Captains.
And now he's at SMU. We'll see how well that works out for him.
At least the Rainbow Wahine lives on. Love that. That, and Women of Troy.
Hopefully well--it's been depressing being a pony.
At least you have great soccer teams?
I've no clue. Being raised Txn, I am only conscious of American football.
If this was a brand-new game I would whole-heartedly agree with renaming the Fighter class to the Warrior class. I've thought it was a lame name since I first cracked open a 3.0 PHB.
However, given the whole BWC goal, I think it would tend to cause confusion renaming the fighter, particularly to a name that currently belongs to an NPC class.
It bothers me when people say things like, "I'm a human fighter." Grammatically, it sounds like you're saying you fight humans. :)
It bothers me when people say things like, "I'm a human fighter." Grammatically, it sounds like you're saying you fight humans. :)
Kinda like a man eating shark sounds like a guy chowing down on a cartilaginous fish?
Renaming major game elements (especially giving them the name previously held by OTHER major game elements) is exactly what you Do Not do when attempting to make a backwards-compatible system.
That would be like intentionally trying to screw up anyone running a 3.5 module with PRPG rules.
I'm sorry, but this would be an unacceptable change.
In France we don't have this problem as we are using for years the name "Guerrier" for the fighter class (guerrier is the french translation of warrior).
|
Looking at the above responses I guess I'm in the minority, but I think it should stay. Maybe it's because I've been playing for nearly two decades, but "fighter" immediately gives me the image of a Regdar-type heavy armor longsword fighter. The classic fighter.
Even if it didn't, it's been here for 30 years, don't change it now.
"Fighter" is what fighters are called...maybe it's not perfect but it's the one I've grown to use...please don't change it.
In Spain too. For almost 30 years, we've been using "guerrero" (warrior) instead of "luchador" (fighter) as the translation of the class, since it sounds much more epic and iconic. But since I buy and use all of the books in english, I would be saddened to lose the good, old fighter even when warrior is indeed more appropiate.
Nah, the names need to remain the same. It's not as if you can't change it in your own games, but it would play merry hell with 3.5 material. "Why doesn't this kobold warrior have his warrior bonus feats?" "That's a 3.5 warrior, which is an NPC class there."
I personally don't like barbarian, either. Berserker would be better I think, as barbarian is more a culture / lifestyle. You have barbarian barbarians, but also barbarian clerics or barbarian commoners. On the other hand, you can have civilised barbarians. All quite weird. But since everything else would cause too much trouble with former material, all because of a single word, I vote for it to stay.
Funny this should come up. When I first started playing D&D in the early 90 all I really knew about the game (aside from the 80s cartoon) was that it had classes based on iconic fantasy archetypes. I wanted to play a warrior and was surprised when I didn’t find the warrior class. I quickly found the fighter and wondered why they didn’t call it the warrior class. I think changing the name of the fighter class to warrior would be good. Warrior does conjure up a richer, more descriptive image for me than fighter. It might confuse a few people for a little bit but this hobby is geared towards the more intelligent sort and they would soon figure this change out.
Jason and Paizo might have some sacred cows to remove before all is said and done---but this sure ain't one of 'em. Changing the Fighter name is throwing away our cultural history without a good reason.
Moo.
|
I, too, have been playing D&D long enough that "Fighter" has become iconic for me, and conjures up images of a heavily-armored, sword-and-shield-carrying soldier.
Yes, technically, all characters in an adventuring party are combatants, in the sense that they all take part in defeating the bad guys/things, but the Fighter is the one (or one of the ones) that goes in, up close and personal, and really does the majority of the traditional fighting.
The real question is...
If such a cow was killed, would the Sacred bonus carry over to Perception: Taste checks made to discern its exceptional flavor?
There is always this danger though...
That scares me....so perhaps that is the desired effect.
Moo.
Can you say "Burger"?
Oh heeeellllll no! This is Independence Day! Moo = Ribeye, Sirlon, New York Strip, Porterhouse... :D````````0
Wow I thought I was going to get burned on this one. Turns out a lot more people agree with me then I thought. Moreover I thought I’d get a lot more reason why to keep the name then I’ve seen. I’ll address each issue as I see them, and with any luck argue them down. Please understand I mean no disrespect to anyone on the other side of this.
# 1 Hydro and others have brought up this as being a deal breaker.
Really with all the rule changes and improvements this breaks the deal?
#2. It would bring up confusion for the stated goal of backwards compatibility; particularly in regards to the Warrior NPC.
I think the skill changes and CMB would do more towards that then a name change. I’ve seen books with Barbarian Feats, Metamagic Feats, Bard Feats, Ranger Feats, Knight Feats, Samurai Feats, hell even Archery Feats but never Warrior Feats (except in OGL games that have already renamed the Fighter to Warrior. Telling players that Warrior Feats are called Fighter feats in book X isn’t a big issue to me. Things like Rage points not being a part of any Barbarian type of Prestige class would be a bigger issue for older books then this.
Moreover if Piazo makes this change future books, 3PP or otherwise, would use the name I’m sure and the confusion, a limited as it its, would become less and less of an issue as pathfinder becomes more popular.
However I’ll admit that my way of thinking was changing the name of the Warrior NPC class to Fighter NPC class is wrong and would cause confusion. I’m open to a better name for that NPC class. Something better then red suits.
#3. Just use the name warrior even though it’s called a fighter.
True but the argument goes both was for those who fondly remember the fighter.
#4 KaeYoss has said that he felt the same about the Barbarian which is a type of people and that it should be called the Berserker.
Valid point however I was speaking in terms of iconic image, not accuracy. Conan and Thunddar were not called Berserkers they were called Barbarians. (Side note we need new movies of both those characters.)
# 5 Sacred Cow said Moo.
Sorry about that, but I think it’s your famous last words.
#6 It just not D’n’D. It’s Sacred. It’s what I grew up with.
Can’t fight this one, since D’n’D wasn’t my first game I just don’t hold the term Sacred. And as I’ve said elsewhere 4th’s biggest mistake wasn’t the rules, or the way the company treated its fans, but in killing so much fluff that simply didn’t need to be killed. Being a Fluff man myself I thi-(dear lord I just reread that, okay next cow to go I move that Fluff be changed to Style, for the love all that’s holy jezzz). Where was I? Oh yeah Fl-ehh Style.
My only argument against this is that, and please don’t be shocked by this. Pathfinder isn’t D’n’D. Laithoron said if this was a brand new game, well it is in a way. It might be D’n’D in Spirit but it’s not that anymore. Most of the other major OGL games call Fighters Warriors now. I guess it’s because I’m not looking at this from the perspective of hard core D’n’D fan but let’s face it D’n’D as a name isn’t our game anymore, I think Pathfinder should um find its own Path.
#7 Images of the rainbow and Hawaii.
Well my answer to this has been very well thought out, and carefully worded. It is.
Huh?
# 8 Confusion with the Warriors.
A. I knew this would come up, I just knew it. B. Only the Baseball gang would cause confusion.
Happy 4th of July everyone! Have a burger, have a beer and throw a dice for on me. Natural 20's for everyone!
TTFN Dre.
I agree that "warrior" would have been a more evocative name.
But "fighter" hearkens back to Gygax reading E.R. Burroughs, and calling the proto-class a "fighting man" (shortened to "fighter" when the rules were published on a large scale). It's been called that ever since -- over 30 years now. To change that many years of tradition requires, for me, a much better reason than "it sounds cooler."
And switching it with the name already given to an NPC class -- I'd be very much against that, unless of course you dropped the "warrior" NPC class entirely (which I would prefer anyway).
I'll be okay with the fighter being renamed the warrior if an only if the wizard is called the magic-user again.
Tit for tat.
My take on it:
Fighter: One who fights. Fits most of the PCs.
Warrior: One who goes at war. Fits most of the the NPCs.
If your looking for this type of change the Monk just couldn't stay.
Keep it I say, it's common use. We say bathroom and it doesn't require an actual bath in the room, it's just what we say.
Sorry, but I'm not with you on this.
Normally, I'm a stickler for this sort of thing.
The Barbarian should rightly be a "Berserker," for instance. But it hardly matters, since all this change would actually achieve is a bunch of enraged purists. Pathfinder is a crowded lifeboat...
|
|
There are different connotations for each word, in my opinion, and these should be taken into account.
Warrior is often used in reference to an individual person. It is much more primal in nature and speaks to us in the image of the lone warrior facing off against insurmountable odds. Warriors tend to be lightly armored but heavily armed people who revel in their individualism and lack any kind of group cohesion. Examples include the Celts and the Norsemen.
Fighter represents someone who is highly trained. Discipline is the name of the game, as well as teamwork and tactics. This class brings to mind a prize boxer in the ring, or a lance formation of Knights, or the massed ranks of the Roman Legion. It is not individual but instead speaks of the larger culture with forms and shapes the fighter and their fighting style.
I am against changing this tradition for the simple reason that 'Warrior sounds better' because I feel the Warrior speaks to a different tradition then Fighter. The name of the DnD game is, most often, teamwork. The word fighter holds to this while the word warrior makes me think of someone who is out for themselves.
Simply put; this would be a needless change that would cause needless complications. When creating a backwards computable system it is best to avoid needless changes. If it isn't broken then don't fix it. Calling the Fighter a Fighter simply isn't broken.
|
|
There are different connotations for each word, in my opinion, and these should be taken into account.
Warrior is often used in reference to an individual person. It is much more primal in nature and speaks to us in the image of the lone warrior facing off against insurmountable odds. Warriors tend to be lightly armored but heavily armed people who revel in their individualism and lack any kind of group cohesion. Examples include the Celts and the Norsemen.
Fighter represents someone who is highly trained. Discipline is the name of the game, as well as teamwork and tactics. This class brings to mind a prize boxer in the ring, or a lance formation of Knights, or the massed ranks of the Roman Legion. It is not individual but instead speaks of the larger culture with forms and shapes the fighter and their fighting style.
I am against changing this tradition for the simple reason that 'Warrior sounds better' because I feel the Warrior speaks to a different tradition then Fighter. The name of the DnD game is, most often, teamwork. The word fighter holds to this while the word warrior makes me think of someone who is out for themselves.
Simply put; this would be a needless change that would cause needless complications. When creating a backwards computable system it is best to avoid needless changes. If it isn't broken then don't fix it. Calling the Fighter a Fighter simply isn't broken.
Would your sentiments have anything to do with your choice of name? Just a thought.
Nah, the names need to remain the same. It's not as if you can't change it in your own games, but it would play merry hell with 3.5 material. "Why doesn't this kobold warrior have his warrior bonus feats?" "That's a 3.5 warrior, which is an NPC class there."
I personally don't like barbarian, either. Berserker would be better I think, as barbarian is more a culture / lifestyle. You have barbarian barbarians, but also barbarian clerics or barbarian commoners. On the other hand, you can have civilised barbarians. All quite weird. But since everything else would cause too much trouble with former material, all because of a single word, I vote for it to stay.
/nod
I like the fighter. Then again, I liked "magic-user" and "thief," too. "Cleric" could be "healer" and I wouldn't complain, either...
I like the fighter. Then again, I liked "magic-user" and "thief," too. "Cleric" could be "healer" and I wouldn't complain, either...
This^
although I would prefer Cleric to Healer. Keep the sacred cows.
Also I like Warrior and Adept for NPCs too. I actually prefer sending say a Goblin/kobolds war party of Warriors led by an adept at beginning PCs.
# 1 Hydro and others have brought up this as being a deal breaker.Really with all the rule changes and improvements this breaks the deal?
I didn't mean "unacceptable" as in I wouldn't accept a game that did this, I ment it as in no sane editor would accept it. It causes confusion without adding anything to the game. It would be an unambiguous mistake.
Changing names is the opposite of what we want to be doing. Ideally, we want to change how things work while leaving names the same, so that existing rules material is still meaningful.
A 3.5 PrC that grants +1d6 sneak attack is still meaningful. How exactly sneak attack works has changed, but it's still sneak attack.
An item that grants +5 to checks made to bullrush is still meangful. How bullrushes work has changed, but there's still something called a bullrush.
A feat that gives you some cool power whenever you are in a barbarian rage is still meaningful. How rage works is completely different, but there is still a state called 'barbarian rage'.
Sometimes, changing both the name and the mechanic is acceptable (for example, changing the 5th level healing spell from "mass heal" to "breath of life"), but you should think carefully before doing it. Any time a monster has the "mass heal" spell-like ability, well.. that's prettymuch gibberish now, the DM has to do some conversion work in replacing it (if only to swap it for the channel energy ability, or breath of life). You shouldn't make a change like this (removing existing game terms) unless the mechanical changes are helpful enough to justify it.
However, not changing the mechanic but changing the name (i.e, changing the name "just because") is downright counterproductive. As I said, it's the opposite of what we want to do here, it hurts compatibility without helping play.
And swapping it with the name of some other existing element looks like downright sabotage. That's even worse than turning old rules into gibberish.
The time to do this would have been 3.0, when the thief became the rogue. I'm sorry if I sound too dismissive, but it looks like you don't quite understand what the PRPG is trying to do. This isn't a new edition. Renaming a core class just to sound better would be out of the question.
Again I must disagree with you Hydro. I see your points and they are valid, but a GM can simply say Fighter Feats are now Warrior Feats, beyond that not much conversion need be done.
Moreover you prove my point to an extent. Had 3.0 made this change I think it simply wouldn't be an issue one way or another today. Pathfinder is a new game, yes backwards compatablity is a priority but so too is improvement. I see it as an improvment, not major but not a problem issue either. And since I'm not a hard line D'n'Der I see Pathfinder as a better and diffent game. If nothing else its what 4th ed. should have been. But its not what 4th ed. is. Its not D'n'D its Pathfinder, a new game that is familar but better.
Assume for a seconed that no other publisher ever puts out 3.X stuff again, Wizards for sure. As time goes by and new players come along they will want a race book, or class book, now its The Splat book of Warriors instead of Fighters. What about the old Fighter book, not important we've moved on, and anyone who has that book is either playing pure 3.5 or knows that in that book Fighter Feats are Warrior Feats. If he lets someone take that book he'd give them the heads up.
5 to 10 years from now, when Pathfinder 2nd. comes out I think they the new name would be regarded as the standard.
However someone did say that it would upset purist on a very small lifeboat that Pathfinder fans are on. This has been so far the most copeling argument. True Pathfinder as a game may not want to rock the boat on an issue that is in the end a cool factor. If the outcry was high then no, leave the poor cow alone. Its just so far boths sides seem even (though at first leaning towards Warrior). Not saying I've change my mind, only that its such a deal breaker I wouldn't ask Paizo to make a hardline stance on the issue.
In the long run however, maybe even for Pathfinder 2nd, I really think Fighter is just too generic and boring a name for a class.
|
I don't care for the name, and would prefer Warrior, but it's an idea whose time is not now. *I* don't use some of the NPC classes (Commoner and Warrior, particularly), so any 'Fighter' in my game who wants to call himself a Warrior, or an Armsman, or a Blademaster, can do so, and any Barbarian that wants to call himself a Berserker, or Battlerager, or a Howling Commando, can do so as well.
Heck, Wizards can even call themselves 'Magic-Users' if they want, even if I might cringe to hear it. Any Rogue is welcome to call himself a 'Thief' as well, although he might be disappointed in the reaction he gets from passersby... Most prefer 'light fighter' or 'skirmisher,' just as most professional Assassins don't call themselves 'Killer' so much as 'Professional' or 'Fixer' or 'Inconvenient Person Removal Specialist.'
|
|
Not sure what you mean there.
If you are referring to the way I look at the word Warrior and its connection to the Norsemen, with Wiglaf being one of many figures in Beowulf, then I suppose that it does have something to do with my own perception of the word.
That was exactly what I meant. I think the same thing, a "warrior" is someone heroic and epic and brave, like Wiglaf. A "fighter" conjures images of a guy who fights things, probably in a steel octagon, or using Hadokens.
I don't care about the names, since my groups characters always find something else to call themselves, which even the PHB recommends. But I did find it odd the first time I looked at the DMG that "warriors" were inferior to "fighters".
Anything but "warrior"... that's already a staple npc class.
Moo.
Mmmmm Sacred Cow!
We could call them Warlord :p , it sounds really cool. Er, uh wait, put down the torches and pitchforks, I go hide now.
WotC has brainwashed me to ignore anything with "Dragon-" or "War-" as a prefix. Warmage, warblade, warforged, blah, blah, blah. Pathfinder is mercifully "war-lite" so far.
WotC has brainwashed me to ignore anything with "Dragon-" or "War-" as a prefix. Warmage, warblade, warforged, blah, blah, blah. Pathfinder is mercifully "war-lite" so far.
Couldn't agree more.
WotC has brainwashed me to ignore anything with "Dragon-" or "War-" as a prefix. Warmage, warblade, warforged, blah, blah, blah. Pathfinder is mercifully "war-lite" so far.Couldn't agree more.
Excepting art with "WAR" in the signature, of course.