D&D 5E Of Fighters and Sammiches

RangerWickett · Oct 11, 2012

But which sandwich is most efficient at killing wererats?

cmbarona · Oct 11, 2012

RangerWickett said:
But which sandwich is most efficient at killing wererats?

The one made at Long John Silver's.
Or the one garnished with Vark.
Or the one whose mayo has E174 food coloring added.

CleverNickName · Oct 11, 2012

Like I said, the metaphor starts to wear a bit thin after a while.

Really, the whole point of my original post can be summed up like this: my benchmark test for a new deli is a simple turkey & swiss. If they can't get that one right, then there is usually no point in going back for any of the others. Likewise, for an RPG game, my benchmark test for it is the simple Fighter class. If they can't get that one right, then there is usually no point in going back for any of the others.

It's fun to discuss the specifics of that comparison, but what I was trying to say was this: I don't like the way the Fighter class feels in 5E so far. It feels too much like the 3E and 4E fighters, and not enough like the BECM and 2E ones that I prefer. So thhis makes it very hard for me to appreciate the system as a whole, because not only is the fighter class one of the most simple and straightforward, it is also one of the most pervasive. Nearly everything in the game "tastes" like a Fighter in some way or another.

But this is not a final version, and I am still playtesting and providing input/feedback to the Wizards, so maybe with a little more polish (and a lot less mayo), it will look and play closer to what I want in a Fighter. Fingers crossed, anyway.

Warbringer · Oct 11, 2012

@CNN

I think I got lost between the analogy and the play test, but if your main complaint was expertise dice "powers", why not just ignore all the options and just roll them as damage dice...

Re backgrounds and specialities stick to something simple like a knight and guardian.

Result, a fighter that hits, and hits hard.... And can help protect the wizard as he always should do

Blackbrrd · Oct 11, 2012

The funny thing about being Norwegian is that we make bread that's completely different than basically the rest of the world. Eating bread outside of Norway is a disappointing affair with bread totally lacking in the fibre department.

Anyway, I do like the reasoning here, but I am tired of salami and cheese sandwiches and want something a bit more refined.

cmbarona · Oct 11, 2012

[MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION]

I think you're over-thinking it. As others have said, Combat Superiority is optional, and can always default to Deadly Strike. Though I get the feeling this is somehow not sufficient...

May I ask why it's not sufficient? There exists an option to make the Fighter more or less complicated as needed. It's like the deli has a delicious condiment bar, and you can mix and match what you want. Want only mayo? We've got a delicious one right here for you! Your buddy wants mustard on his Turkey sandwich? He's free to have as much as he wants!

... Though I do pose that question sincerely. I don't know much about the editions of Fighters you listed. How would you have structured the class within the 5e framework? How would you have done so in such a way that doesn't restrict people to "only mayo" when they want something fancier on their turkey sandwiches?

... Also, thanks for making me second-guess my choice of mustard instead of mayo when I was packing my lunch this morning.

Tony Vargas · Oct 12, 2012

CleverNickName said:
Likewise, for an RPG game, my benchmark test for it is the simple Fighter class. If they can't get that one right, then there is usually no point in going back for any of the others.

It's fun to discuss the specifics of that comparison, but what I was trying to say was this: I don't like the way the Fighter class feels in 5E so far. It feels too much like the 3E and 4E fighters, and not enough like the BECM and 2E ones that I prefer.

This just makes me question your taste in fighters. The 3e fighter was a wonder of game-design elegance and flexibility, the sheer number of broad archetypes and detailed concepts you could emulate with it or by using it as part of a build was staggering. True, it had the misfortune of being in the same game with CoDzilla, meaning that virtually all of those innumerable, builds, from the elegant to the baroque to the sublime, were strictly inferior to the next guy's magically-buffed pet. But, that didn't detract from the fighter, in itself. Similarly, while the 4e fighter couldn't cover the same breadth of archetypes (archers are obliged to go Ranger, instead, for instance), it finally delivered on the fighter's long-time supposed role in being able to block for and protect allies /with it's native fighter features/ - and, also for the first time, it was reasonably balanced with other classes at all levels, not doing all the heavy lifting (npi) at 1st only to be reduced to magic-item platform (or caddy) later in the campaign.

By comparison, the 2e fighter was little more than a buzzsaw, and the 1e fighter a mere axe. They were both good at dishing out damage and chopping down monsters that simply stood there to take it - and damn little else, based on their actual mechanics.

Bluenose · Oct 12, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
By comparison, the 2e fighter was little more than a buzzsaw, and the 1e fighter a mere axe. They were both good at dishing out damage and chopping down monsters that simply stood there to take it - and damn little else, based on their actual mechanics.

The AD&D Fighters (both editions) were also tough little ****s. By high levels you could believe they were a dragon-fighter. Higher hit points and better saving throws than the other classes made them tough to take out of fights. And if you used NWPs, they weren't bad at them.

BECMI Fighters got the above, and weapon mastery, and a "prestige class" at 12th level. Real mincing machines.

Li Shenron · Oct 12, 2012

CleverNickName said:
I don't like the way the Fighter class feels in 5E so far. It feels too much like the 3E and 4E fighters, and not enough like the BECM and 2E ones that I prefer.

Do you think it is because of the Fighter class itself?
Or because of the combat rules used?
Or because of the character creation rules used?

Because the 5e Fighter is more or less like the 3e Fighter plus CS/ED (a class-specific feature), and the 3e Fighter is more or less like previous editions Fighters plus skills and feats (not class-specific features but parts of the general character creation rules and game system).

I'm A Banana · Oct 12, 2012

What a lot of the earlier fighters had, in addition to damage-dealing awesome, was general "toughness" and "resilience." They had big HD, they had awesome saves, they used all the magic arms and armor, they got the best armor -- they had good "passive" abilities that hinged off of other game mechanics to make an effective fighter.

Not that they were always as good at this as they should be, not that other classes didn't sometimes take 90-95% of what a fighter was good at and then made it better, just that there was some invisibility in how its abilities sometimes operated. Things like "Paladins must give up their wealth!" were more than just fluff, they were rules to help keep the fighter viable, since fighters didn't have to do that.

At any rate, I'm curious how the 5e fighter fails for you, CNN. What -- specifically -- leaves that bad taste in your mouth?