I've long assumed that the Fighters were the backbone of the Fighting-types. Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins and Cavaliers all have their special roles, but the Fighters are the ones who spend hour after hour day after day training for armed combat. They're a bit generic, but they can master feat combos that the other classes can only dream of. At least, that's how it was in 3.5.
Now, I haven't had a chance to see the Fighter in action in Pathfinder, but I notice that they get all these armor abilities, which are probably very useful in a traditional fantasy campaign.
But along comes the Gunslinger, who's bullets rip through the Fighter's armor. Guns become more and more common, and eventually musketeers become the backbone of the modern army, with Cavaliers serving as cavalry and Rangers serving as scouts.
So what happens to the Fighters? Do they become an anachronism? A reminder of the olden days, wandering the land with sword in hand, the last ones to give up their suits of armor? Or is there a place for the Fighter in a society that is rapidly becoming modern?
They become the pike in the pike and shot formation.
They are the master duelists, the elite bodyguards. Army's are mostly warriors. The captain is a fighter. It is still a while after the musketeer before melee combat is irrelevant.
They become the pike in the pike and shot formation.
They are the master duelists, the elite bodyguards. Army's are mostly warriors. The captain is a fighter. It is still a while after the musketeer before melee combat is irrelevant.
Thanks for the link. It will be really useful for my campaign.
I thought about the bodyguard angle. That certainly is possible, especially in palaces where people carry pole axes around. And of course, adventurers may be of any class that offers the skill set that seems useful.
It does kind of look like the Fighter is getting phased out, but still has a role. This could lead to class rivalry.
Fighters are as you point out very generic.
In your camapign you could have fighters that become both adept at fencing and shooting firearms while emphasizing in mobility and light or no armor.
Some of the APG fighter archtypes actually loose the armor training ability. Thus, while gunslingers become the new ranged experts, fighters are still all-round more useful than any other fighting class - IMO.
EDIT: for fantasy role play, you can still expect your character to meet a majority of foes, who do not use fire arms.
I got a chance to read through the link that Brambleman posted above. It seems that in my time period, Fighters are still an important part of the battlefield, or at least, men with the fighting skill.
So I'm happy.
I got a chance to read through the link that Brambleman posted above. It seems that in my time period, Fighters are still an important part of the battlefield, or at least, men with the fighting skill.
So I'm happy.
Glad it helped. On a different note, take a look at the works of Alexandre Dumas. The Three musketeers, Count of Monte Cristo, The Man in the Iron Mask. The main characters use guns, but use sabres and rapiers more. The Three Musketeers were not gunslingers, but Fighter/Duelists. Honerable single combat will give the fighter another niche.
I like the idea of the class rivalry too, both character class and social class. I see the nobility clinging to the days of the fighter while the common and rising middle class hail the era of the gun.
Heavy armor was not completely useless against the earliest firearms. Spike's Deadliest Warrior show had a few episodes where this came into play, and determined that a late-medieval knight's plate armor would reliable stop a bullet from a flintlock pistol, but not from a blunderbuss. Also, musketeers had breastplates specifically designed for maximum deflection so (hopefully) bullets would ricochet off them.
I was reading about a guy whom Christina Alexandra had executed. She had worked out an agreement that she was still a queen after she had given up her crown, and sometime in the 1760s she had determined that this guy working for her had committed treason against her, and ordered him executed. But this turned out to take a while, because the person killing him was not aware that he was wearing chainmail until it blocked his sword blade.
But people did wonder, if he had chainmail and this guy was trying to cut his head off with a sword, why didn't he either try to fight or try to escape?
But the story does indicate that some guys were still wearing chainmail even in the 1760s.
I still wear chainmail on occasion in the current year. <shrugs>