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
Building a better Fighter
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="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7149417" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Ok. A case could be made reflecting on how much of that is actual in-print intended "promises" and how much "expectations/read into." But that might be a different conversation, so we'll leave that be for the time being. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Ok. Why does "The FIghter Fights" need to be challenged in order to add design elements to it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See @<strong><em><u>Sacrosanct</u></em></strong> 's response to this. When you said Basic (or "BD&D") the Rules Cyclopedia was not what I was [mentally] referencing. I've never seen/read it, but it undoubtedly had some editing, cleaned up and/or expanded fluff writing, and at least a few rules tweaks/expansions to the original material. I also do not consider/default thinking to "2e" when mentioning "AD&D." As significantly more similar it is to 1e as opposed to/compared with 3e, only heightened by the company's change of hands betwixt 2-to-3e, 2e is still a significantly "different" edition to THE [original] A-D&D. </p><p></p><p>But, again, we can leave that for now. Your quotes and comments have been most clear and clarifying. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've heard that about rogues...Note to self: I need to get some more rogues in my life.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Uhmmmm...Yeah, ok. There's probably other stuff. But those are good from a mechanics design starting point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are correct. That is exactly my answer. The "cause" for your PC to do ANYthing is up to the player...it is the same regardless of class. Especially the "big 4/building block" classes upon and from which all other classes flow. Causes can become more built-in and narrower/specific the further from those classes you get.</p><p></p><p>Making a "cause" intrinsic class fluff is what gets you to Paladins, Monks, and Rangers...maybe barbarians...druids and warlocks (though clearly not branching from the Fighter), too.</p><p></p><p>But, ok. So you would like to build "prestige class" style player options into the class at a higher level? I don't think 5e would really approve/work that way. Also, then, as you noted in your example, the option to<em><strong> not </strong></em>be beholden to some liege or temple is then stripped from the player.</p><p></p><p>So, I'm gonna veer toward the "I don't really see cause as a legitimate place to insert broadening mechanical oomph into the Fighter" side.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right then, so we've pretty much covered this.</p><p>1. They fight better with higher HD, Second Wind, and Indomitable keeping them on their feet longer and being able to "take a hit" and keep fighting. </p><p>2. Fighting Styles & Extra Attacks see to it they hit more frequently, more reliably, and/or result in dealing more damage than the average bear.</p><p>3. Action Surge also gets them a little extra...well, "action" as well which, while not having to be additional attacks, I suspect often are. Or stuff like moving to/taking on a different opponent when their first goes down. Also helping them "fight better."</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, not entirely, no. As we've both, now, noted:</p><p>1. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks...even Valor Bards!...all get "Extra Attacks." Which really kind screws the Fighter's pooch as far as that being a "Fighter" thing.</p><p>2. Paladins and Rangers get Fighting Styles. Again, making them not a "Fighter" thing, but clearly a more broad "warrior-types" thing.</p><p>3. Several classes have "recharging" mechanics which, while not being "Second Wind" can serve to keep them fighting/in the field beyond their initial limits. </p><p>4. Cunning Action is, basically, though more narrowly, the Fighter's "Action Surge" for Thieves: get an extra action in on your turn. I presume there might be another class or two with features that permit additional actions, though perhaps not as open/undefined as the Fighter's.</p><p></p><p>So, basically, no none of that is substantially different than other classes. The Fighter class, by design, is differentiated through their subclasses and the features the receive therein. Again, just as much as any other class. </p><p></p><p>I, personally, would probably have spent more time than it seems they did on those "other two pillars of adventure" we hear a lot of lip service about, but many if not most classes don't really seem to have any kind of usefulness in at least one pillar each.</p><p></p><p>I, personally, would have made "Remarkable Athlete" (exploration useful) and something akin to my "Veteran's Camaraderie" (interaction useful) part of the base class.</p><p></p><p>Beyond that, as least as far as I can tell (and don't mind) in 5e, it's up to the subclasses to flesh out...and/or play up one or two pillars beyond the others, rely on different secondary abilities (is there a Dex-fighter in there? Is there a Smart/Int-Fighter in there?), and generally inject specific fluff/story pieces. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>SET THAT SPEAR, BABY! lol. Yup. IIRC, it was Fighters, Dwarves, I think Halflings too (at least in the original). Can't recall if Elves could...maybe not since they had their magic. Then there were a few more when you got to Companion level and beyond. Wrestling/grappling and such. I feel like there were some others.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>..."What's your Cause?," "How you Fight Better?," and "Is it suitably Different than Other Classes?" Those 3 questions? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They are perfectly fine questions to ask if you wish to get to the answers you are looking for. lol.</p><p></p><p>See above for how I answer them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright. So, we are clear then...base fighter class needs at least one exploration feature, one interactions feature.</p><p></p><p>I might suggest, whether it is a base or sub class thing I'm not sure, but looking to the ranger's expertise...what if Fighters (and fighters alone) were given some kind of "Dungeoneer/Explorer" feature that gave them advantages to exploratory things during adventures?</p><p></p><p>Some kind of innate leadership quality definitely strikes me as a sub-class thing.</p><p></p><p>In other words, leave it to the subclasses for the players to decide what they want their place in the world to be and become. Make a subclass that can ascend to a political/feudal spot, if they so choose. But I don't see how you can make that a base class feature/line/built-in flavor for the Fighter...not without ticking off a lot of people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7149417, member: 92511"] Ok. A case could be made reflecting on how much of that is actual in-print intended "promises" and how much "expectations/read into." But that might be a different conversation, so we'll leave that be for the time being. Ok. Why does "The FIghter Fights" need to be challenged in order to add design elements to it? See @[B][I][U]Sacrosanct[/U][/I][/B] 's response to this. When you said Basic (or "BD&D") the Rules Cyclopedia was not what I was [mentally] referencing. I've never seen/read it, but it undoubtedly had some editing, cleaned up and/or expanded fluff writing, and at least a few rules tweaks/expansions to the original material. I also do not consider/default thinking to "2e" when mentioning "AD&D." As significantly more similar it is to 1e as opposed to/compared with 3e, only heightened by the company's change of hands betwixt 2-to-3e, 2e is still a significantly "different" edition to THE [original] A-D&D. But, again, we can leave that for now. Your quotes and comments have been most clear and clarifying. I've heard that about rogues...Note to self: I need to get some more rogues in my life. Uhmmmm...Yeah, ok. There's probably other stuff. But those are good from a mechanics design starting point. You are correct. That is exactly my answer. The "cause" for your PC to do ANYthing is up to the player...it is the same regardless of class. Especially the "big 4/building block" classes upon and from which all other classes flow. Causes can become more built-in and narrower/specific the further from those classes you get. Making a "cause" intrinsic class fluff is what gets you to Paladins, Monks, and Rangers...maybe barbarians...druids and warlocks (though clearly not branching from the Fighter), too. But, ok. So you would like to build "prestige class" style player options into the class at a higher level? I don't think 5e would really approve/work that way. Also, then, as you noted in your example, the option to[I][B] not [/B][/I]be beholden to some liege or temple is then stripped from the player. So, I'm gonna veer toward the "I don't really see cause as a legitimate place to insert broadening mechanical oomph into the Fighter" side. Right then, so we've pretty much covered this. 1. They fight better with higher HD, Second Wind, and Indomitable keeping them on their feet longer and being able to "take a hit" and keep fighting. 2. Fighting Styles & Extra Attacks see to it they hit more frequently, more reliably, and/or result in dealing more damage than the average bear. 3. Action Surge also gets them a little extra...well, "action" as well which, while not having to be additional attacks, I suspect often are. Or stuff like moving to/taking on a different opponent when their first goes down. Also helping them "fight better." Well, not entirely, no. As we've both, now, noted: 1. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks...even Valor Bards!...all get "Extra Attacks." Which really kind screws the Fighter's pooch as far as that being a "Fighter" thing. 2. Paladins and Rangers get Fighting Styles. Again, making them not a "Fighter" thing, but clearly a more broad "warrior-types" thing. 3. Several classes have "recharging" mechanics which, while not being "Second Wind" can serve to keep them fighting/in the field beyond their initial limits. 4. Cunning Action is, basically, though more narrowly, the Fighter's "Action Surge" for Thieves: get an extra action in on your turn. I presume there might be another class or two with features that permit additional actions, though perhaps not as open/undefined as the Fighter's. So, basically, no none of that is substantially different than other classes. The Fighter class, by design, is differentiated through their subclasses and the features the receive therein. Again, just as much as any other class. I, personally, would probably have spent more time than it seems they did on those "other two pillars of adventure" we hear a lot of lip service about, but many if not most classes don't really seem to have any kind of usefulness in at least one pillar each. I, personally, would have made "Remarkable Athlete" (exploration useful) and something akin to my "Veteran's Camaraderie" (interaction useful) part of the base class. Beyond that, as least as far as I can tell (and don't mind) in 5e, it's up to the subclasses to flesh out...and/or play up one or two pillars beyond the others, rely on different secondary abilities (is there a Dex-fighter in there? Is there a Smart/Int-Fighter in there?), and generally inject specific fluff/story pieces. SET THAT SPEAR, BABY! lol. Yup. IIRC, it was Fighters, Dwarves, I think Halflings too (at least in the original). Can't recall if Elves could...maybe not since they had their magic. Then there were a few more when you got to Companion level and beyond. Wrestling/grappling and such. I feel like there were some others. ..."What's your Cause?," "How you Fight Better?," and "Is it suitably Different than Other Classes?" Those 3 questions? They are perfectly fine questions to ask if you wish to get to the answers you are looking for. lol. See above for how I answer them. Alright. So, we are clear then...base fighter class needs at least one exploration feature, one interactions feature. I might suggest, whether it is a base or sub class thing I'm not sure, but looking to the ranger's expertise...what if Fighters (and fighters alone) were given some kind of "Dungeoneer/Explorer" feature that gave them advantages to exploratory things during adventures? Some kind of innate leadership quality definitely strikes me as a sub-class thing. In other words, leave it to the subclasses for the players to decide what they want their place in the world to be and become. Make a subclass that can ascend to a political/feudal spot, if they so choose. But I don't see how you can make that a base class feature/line/built-in flavor for the Fighter...not without ticking off a lot of people. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Fighter
Top