MarkusTay |
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.
So if you actually had a 'Luchador' class, would they all be required to wear masks?
just kidding.
I think fighter is just fine - its what he does! A soldier is a trained, professional fighter. A Warrior is a fighter from a primitive culture, a Monk is fighter who has trained to go un-armed, a barbarian is a fighter that uses a 'beserk' style to both attack and scare the s__t out of his opponents...
Which brings me to my point - don't get rid of 'Fighter', instead roll all the other 'fighter-classes' into the main one as optional paths. You can even deep-six the Pally as a 'Holy Warrior'.
Then again, that wouldn't be 3e anymore, so it's never going to happen.
mangos1 |
Fighter, IMHO, is not the iconic title the class should have. Fighter just seems (and has always seemed) like a dumb name to me. Warrior seems much more iconic. However, D&D has compounded the problem by making Warrior an NPC class.
Fighter always conjures an image of a boxer (as they are in fact, called fighters) whereas a warrior is someone that is a soldier. I think that Fighter has been a misnomer of the class since its inception--and to stick with "fighter" just "because" makes no sense.
Jal Dorak |
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.
...Warpriest, War Wizard, War of the Spider Queen...
I'm really suprised that Draconomicon didn't have a Wardragon or Warwyrm.
EDIT: Really, D&D isn't just about killing stuff, we promise! But check out the new "WARMONGER PRESTIGE CLASS!"
Andre Caceres |
Here is a possible solution. Change the name Fighter to Warrior as I said, and what seems like many people would support, but don't change Warrior npc into Fighter as that might cause confusion (not much but some) instead call them soilders, as in most cases that is what they are soilder cannon fodder, soilders of the Lizardfolk community, Soilder orcs for the dark lord, whatever.
Again the only real problem I see for Pathfinder do so would be the fact that some hard core D'n'Ders would give up on the them. But the more I'm reading on this thread the more I see it as a fairly even split. Which wasn't what I expected when I started this thread.
And as I said before it might be good for Pathfinder to do this, thus saying yes we love 3.5 OGL, but we are our own game, and as most printed products are either going 4th or there own way (for now) they really wouldn't be hurting the name. If anything it make Pathfinder a little more unique and seperate from 4th edition.
KaeYoss |
I think WAR's being overused. Not every freaking cover needs to be a WAR portrait of an Iconic or a big NPC in the adventure. Between Pathfinder and Eberron, his style is wearing on me a bit.
Not saying I don't like it, but I am a bit tired of it.
Well, yes, it does. It's the cover design they go with. Continuity and all that.
As far as I know, Wayne's only in for a dozen covers or so, so maybe some day, someone else will paint the covers and the cover models.
Not that those cover models are anything like bad, mind you. If he keeps that up, he can do it till kingdom come if you ask me.
toyrobots wrote:Excepting art with "WAR" in the signature, of course.People go absolutely ballistic when I say this, but I'm really not that big a fan, to be honest. If this were real life, and not the Internet, I wouldn't even be allowed to admit that without fear of lynch mobs, I know.
I know another who doesn't like WAR at all. It's okay. Nobody is perfect. I'm sure you have good points as well ;-P.
Jal Dorak wrote:But check out the new "WARMONGER PRESTIGE CLASS!"Whoremonger prestige class? How do I qualify?!
I'd approve of both!