Hacking 2e: The Fighter

That's right, I'll be using the revised
PHB artwork for this series. Despair!

The Fighter (né Fighting-Man) has been here since Chainmail, and has survived every edition. If there was a default character class in D&D, this is it. Due to its simplicity of design and straightforward mechanics, it is commonly derided as too simple and, ultimately, boring. Most editions would take a stab at trying to make the Fighter more interesting, and 2e was no exception, though its solution was to copy Unearthed Arcana and just make the class hit better and harder and more often. If your goal is to keep the Fighter as the easy-to-run martial choice, this gets the job done.

However, this is not a history lesson. If you want an absurd amount of detail about the Fighter’s travel through the editions (and beyond), you can’t do better than Brandes Stoddard’s fourteen part history of the class.

While you’re at it, I always recommend Matt Colville’s The History of D&D, One Fighter at a Time. It’s a good mix of general history and Fighter-specific detail. He made it as far as 3rd Edition.

Let’s dissect the Fighter, see what works, and what might need some adjustment.

Hacking 2e: Class

Class is the beating heart of D&D. You could ditch almost everything from the game – many editions have, in one form or another – but as long as you have distinct classes which differentiate themselves through unique powers and abilities, you still have the essence. Without them, you’re playing something else.

Admittedly, this is why I’ve spent the better part of a year finding anything else to write about: it’s a big slice of work, and an important one for the purposes of this hack, so I’ve put off making a mess of it. However, playtesting is fast approaching, so it’s time to crack this open.

Alignment Across the Editions

Stepping away from the hack for a moment, I’ve been thinking about alignment.

Alignment was there from the start. As such, it has been an ever-present feature of the varied editions, right up there with Ability Scores and Classes. There is a 50+ year argument regarding the place and functionality of this quantified moral compass. These arguments can get weirdly ontological.

To get a better grasp of this most contentious of systems, let’s break down how alignment has been used in D&D and how it has changed throughout the editions.

Hacking 2e: Skills and the Nonweapon Proficiency System – Part 7 (Coda)

Surprise. The write-up on alignment is taking a bit longer than I anticipated, life is being life, and I really like the idea of having 7 parts (a la Rod) over just 6. So, consider this a coda to the preceding series.

The rules laid out in the prior post detail a division of use: passive and active. Active is boilerplate and unsurprising; if a skill would come into play, and the task has a chance of failure for one so trained, then an Ability check occurs without penalty or restriction. Passive is seemingly simpler, in that it gives the character auto-success features, but I think it’s the more interesting function of these skills. Whereas active use may be more exciting and even dramatic, the passive use guarantees a more open and reactive world, while cementing a given character’s identity.

Let me explain through two other games.