Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForeverSlayer" data-source="post: 6284250" data-attributes="member: 91812"><p>Seems to me since the public playtest has closed, we have been getting a bit more 4th edition type mechanics slipped into the game. I would like to point out somethings from the L&L article.</p><p></p><p>"<em>When you're relegated to serving as the baseline, it's hard to acquire a distinct flavor. 4th Edition was the first version of D&D to give the fighter a truly unique mechanic. Before that, combat feats in 3e created lots of options for the fighter but were available to other classes as well. Weapon specialization was an optional rule in 2nd Edition, but it did a great job of making it clear that fighters were the best warriors. Even better, it was a fairly simple rule to understand</em>."</p><p></p><p>I honestly think Mike Mearls relies too much on mechanics to identify a class. Not sure about you, but the fighter from Pathfinder can vary from being a master of archery, to a light armored quick step fighter, to an unarmed brawler, to a heavy armor wearing tank, to a tactitian, or even a simple two handed fighter. Most of these just involved investing in certain feats and choosing certain types of equipment along with a description from the player. BAM!! There is your flavor. </p><p></p><p>"<em>Playtest feedback for D&D Next has consistently painted the fighter as one of the most satisfying and powerful classes in the game. We also know that though a simple fighter is great for many players, others want more options for the class</em>."</p><p></p><p>Playtest feedback shows the fighter as the most satisfying and powerful classes in the game so why can't Mike just stop there? If it's the most successful class in the game, why continue to tinker with it? </p><p></p><p>A lot of things, people I know, didn't like about 4th edition are being integrated into the current rules at a time where there is no survey or ability to give direct feedback. I don't mind fighters being able to trip, or shield bash, or use a whip to capture or anything like that, but from Mike's own fingers, he said they managed to capture the concepts of 4th edition fighter powers and create maneuvers. Not sure if Mike has a personal agenda here, but he should be careful what he decides to add into the game this late in it's creation stage. </p><p></p><p>I would just like to go back to the fighter class being successful again. Says here in the article that characters should be able to function at 1st and 2nd level, but they already do function at those levels so I'm not sure what he is on about. Sounds to me like he is just finding BS reasons to start throwing in powers. It also seems that Mearls is applying at wills to the wrong types of classes and same with the dailies and encounters. </p><p></p><p>I can tell you from my personal feelings that I would have trouble playing in a game along side a character that uses 4th edition style mechanics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForeverSlayer, post: 6284250, member: 91812"] Seems to me since the public playtest has closed, we have been getting a bit more 4th edition type mechanics slipped into the game. I would like to point out somethings from the L&L article. "[I]When you're relegated to serving as the baseline, it's hard to acquire a distinct flavor. 4th Edition was the first version of D&D to give the fighter a truly unique mechanic. Before that, combat feats in 3e created lots of options for the fighter but were available to other classes as well. Weapon specialization was an optional rule in 2nd Edition, but it did a great job of making it clear that fighters were the best warriors. Even better, it was a fairly simple rule to understand[/I]." I honestly think Mike Mearls relies too much on mechanics to identify a class. Not sure about you, but the fighter from Pathfinder can vary from being a master of archery, to a light armored quick step fighter, to an unarmed brawler, to a heavy armor wearing tank, to a tactitian, or even a simple two handed fighter. Most of these just involved investing in certain feats and choosing certain types of equipment along with a description from the player. BAM!! There is your flavor. "[I]Playtest feedback for D&D Next has consistently painted the fighter as one of the most satisfying and powerful classes in the game. We also know that though a simple fighter is great for many players, others want more options for the class[/I]." Playtest feedback shows the fighter as the most satisfying and powerful classes in the game so why can't Mike just stop there? If it's the most successful class in the game, why continue to tinker with it? A lot of things, people I know, didn't like about 4th edition are being integrated into the current rules at a time where there is no survey or ability to give direct feedback. I don't mind fighters being able to trip, or shield bash, or use a whip to capture or anything like that, but from Mike's own fingers, he said they managed to capture the concepts of 4th edition fighter powers and create maneuvers. Not sure if Mike has a personal agenda here, but he should be careful what he decides to add into the game this late in it's creation stage. I would just like to go back to the fighter class being successful again. Says here in the article that characters should be able to function at 1st and 2nd level, but they already do function at those levels so I'm not sure what he is on about. Sounds to me like he is just finding BS reasons to start throwing in powers. It also seems that Mearls is applying at wills to the wrong types of classes and same with the dailies and encounters. I can tell you from my personal feelings that I would have trouble playing in a game along side a character that uses 4th edition style mechanics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.
Top