Fighter ability bonuses
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:09 pm
It has long been my understanding and practice that the extraordinary strength ability bonus and the added hit points for a 17 or 18 constitution was intended to be for the fighter AND its sub-classes. That is the fighter, paladin, and ranger (and the barbarian, if you're into that sort of thing).
However, there isn't much textual support for that in the PHB reading. It just says "fighter" in the Str and Con write up. I know, I know. Subsequent products were replete with paladins and rangers with extraordinary strengths and high hit point totals. True. But from the PHB text alone, one could certainly argue that only the fighter gets the bonuses.
That brings me to my question of what "should" the rule be. Under my long-time understanding of the rules, the fighter has the following advantages over the paladin and/or ranger:
1. Easier to qualify for, the significance of which varies greatly depending on ability generation method used;
2. Quicker advancement than the paladin;
3. Slightly more hit points than the ranger;
4. No "role-playing" restrictions on amount of possessions, alignment, henchmen and hirelings, associations, and etc.;
5. More (not necessarily more powerful or better) followers at name level;
6. The ability (shared by the ranger, but apparently not the paladin) to found a freehold and collect taxes therefrom;
7. Receives multiple attacks sooner than the ranger; and
8. More initial weapon proficiencies.
So the question is, is that enough to offset the many great powers the ranger and paladin get?
I think my answer is, "yes, unless..." or "no, if..." By which I mean, if you run your campaign in such a way that the fighter's advantages are emphasized, those advantages are probably enough.
However, if you let players pick whatever class they want regardless of the rarity of said class implied by the required ability scores, if you don't do experience and training by the book, if you don't enforce the ranger and paladin "role-playing" restrictions, if you play a game which de-emphasizes the importance of henchmen, hirelings, and followers, if you play a game that doesn't have the stronghold "end-game," if you don't use the combat rules that give advantages to characters with multiple attacks or additional weapon proficiencies... If you don't do any of those things, you probably need to give the fighter something else to get someone to play one over a ranger or paladin. And giving the Con and Str bonuses exclusively to the fighter is probably that thing.
I think it's notable that other than the combat rules, all of the rules I listed that advantage the fighter really only come into great effect in a campaign style game. In one-off games, most of those rules simply won't come into play. So maybe whether the ability bonuses are exclusive to the fighter or not should be decided based on what type of game you're playing.
However, there isn't much textual support for that in the PHB reading. It just says "fighter" in the Str and Con write up. I know, I know. Subsequent products were replete with paladins and rangers with extraordinary strengths and high hit point totals. True. But from the PHB text alone, one could certainly argue that only the fighter gets the bonuses.
That brings me to my question of what "should" the rule be. Under my long-time understanding of the rules, the fighter has the following advantages over the paladin and/or ranger:
1. Easier to qualify for, the significance of which varies greatly depending on ability generation method used;
2. Quicker advancement than the paladin;
3. Slightly more hit points than the ranger;
4. No "role-playing" restrictions on amount of possessions, alignment, henchmen and hirelings, associations, and etc.;
5. More (not necessarily more powerful or better) followers at name level;
6. The ability (shared by the ranger, but apparently not the paladin) to found a freehold and collect taxes therefrom;
7. Receives multiple attacks sooner than the ranger; and
8. More initial weapon proficiencies.
So the question is, is that enough to offset the many great powers the ranger and paladin get?
I think my answer is, "yes, unless..." or "no, if..." By which I mean, if you run your campaign in such a way that the fighter's advantages are emphasized, those advantages are probably enough.
However, if you let players pick whatever class they want regardless of the rarity of said class implied by the required ability scores, if you don't do experience and training by the book, if you don't enforce the ranger and paladin "role-playing" restrictions, if you play a game which de-emphasizes the importance of henchmen, hirelings, and followers, if you play a game that doesn't have the stronghold "end-game," if you don't use the combat rules that give advantages to characters with multiple attacks or additional weapon proficiencies... If you don't do any of those things, you probably need to give the fighter something else to get someone to play one over a ranger or paladin. And giving the Con and Str bonuses exclusively to the fighter is probably that thing.
I think it's notable that other than the combat rules, all of the rules I listed that advantage the fighter really only come into great effect in a campaign style game. In one-off games, most of those rules simply won't come into play. So maybe whether the ability bonuses are exclusive to the fighter or not should be decided based on what type of game you're playing.
