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
Fighter Class rewrite
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="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8403178" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>Thanks for your feedback ECMO3!</p><p></p><p>I think it's worth reiterating that this rewrite was born of a blend of things – one of which is specific deficiencies (mentioned in my OP) with the PHB fighter class as compared to "warrior types" like the barbarian, paladin, and ranger. I can reiterate those if it would be helpful, but, yeah, it is intended to be <em>somewhat </em>more powerful than the default fighter – because one of my objectives was filling those deficiencies. There is definitely room for fine-tuning <em>how much more powerful, </em>but the premise here is that it SHOULD be more powerful than the PHB fighter, because that class is lacking features at key levels which its other "warrior type" counterpart have.</p><p></p><p>Just clarifying that if the discussion is #1 "<em>how much more powerful is appropriate/desirable?"</em> then I am very happy to have that discussion.</p><p></p><p>Whereas if the discussion is #2 <em>"I disagree with your premise. It shouldn't be any more powerful than the PHB fighter." </em>well, that's actually a discussion about the premises in my OP. So it's a very different conversation.</p><p></p><p>I'm assuming we're having a #1 discussion, but if I'm assuming incorrectly, please correct me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know I'm responding out of order a little, but I wanted to reply to this comment first. The whole point of fan-made classes is to approach design with a <em>different</em> lens than the designers, right?</p><p></p><p>Otherwise, if I was moving in the exact same grain with the same design philosophy, I'd basically recreate the fighter with minor, if any, differences. And there's no point in that. It's "milk toast."</p><p></p><p>What I'm saying is that, there is merit in challenging the design ethos which resulted in a particular class or rules implementation.</p><p></p><p>In this case, my design thinking is – hey, I agree with Mike Mearls' thoughts about the fighter being designed toward mechanics first, not story first, and my tl;dr explanation for that is that removing all that AD&D vassalage stuff left a void in the fighter that hasn't been filled since.</p><p></p><p>I also am under no illusion that there's a lot of demand for this. I've looked at all the existing data points we have exhaustively, and by and large ~75% of players are totally happy with the 5e fighter. So obviously, I'm not "fixing something that isn't broken for the people who like it already", rather I'm trying to create big effects with minimalistic changes for the minority of us who want something different (and even then my approach won't work for others in that minority - it's hardly unified). In other words, I'm not trying to recreate 4th edition's level of complexity, but I'm trying to keep towards the more streamlined 5th edition. Small changes for maximum effect is where I'm coming from in this re-write.</p><p></p><p>Back to work, but you have some great ideas for tweaking the power and adjusting. I like a lot of it, and it deserves a well thought-out response, just need to have a block of time to thoughtfully respond.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 8403178, member: 20323"] Thanks for your feedback ECMO3! I think it's worth reiterating that this rewrite was born of a blend of things – one of which is specific deficiencies (mentioned in my OP) with the PHB fighter class as compared to "warrior types" like the barbarian, paladin, and ranger. I can reiterate those if it would be helpful, but, yeah, it is intended to be [I]somewhat [/I]more powerful than the default fighter – because one of my objectives was filling those deficiencies. There is definitely room for fine-tuning [I]how much more powerful, [/I]but the premise here is that it SHOULD be more powerful than the PHB fighter, because that class is lacking features at key levels which its other "warrior type" counterpart have. Just clarifying that if the discussion is #1 "[I]how much more powerful is appropriate/desirable?"[/I] then I am very happy to have that discussion. Whereas if the discussion is #2 [I]"I disagree with your premise. It shouldn't be any more powerful than the PHB fighter." [/I]well, that's actually a discussion about the premises in my OP. So it's a very different conversation. I'm assuming we're having a #1 discussion, but if I'm assuming incorrectly, please correct me. I know I'm responding out of order a little, but I wanted to reply to this comment first. The whole point of fan-made classes is to approach design with a [I]different[/I] lens than the designers, right? Otherwise, if I was moving in the exact same grain with the same design philosophy, I'd basically recreate the fighter with minor, if any, differences. And there's no point in that. It's "milk toast." What I'm saying is that, there is merit in challenging the design ethos which resulted in a particular class or rules implementation. In this case, my design thinking is – hey, I agree with Mike Mearls' thoughts about the fighter being designed toward mechanics first, not story first, and my tl;dr explanation for that is that removing all that AD&D vassalage stuff left a void in the fighter that hasn't been filled since. I also am under no illusion that there's a lot of demand for this. I've looked at all the existing data points we have exhaustively, and by and large ~75% of players are totally happy with the 5e fighter. So obviously, I'm not "fixing something that isn't broken for the people who like it already", rather I'm trying to create big effects with minimalistic changes for the minority of us who want something different (and even then my approach won't work for others in that minority - it's hardly unified). In other words, I'm not trying to recreate 4th edition's level of complexity, but I'm trying to keep towards the more streamlined 5th edition. Small changes for maximum effect is where I'm coming from in this re-write. Back to work, but you have some great ideas for tweaking the power and adjusting. I like a lot of it, and it deserves a well thought-out response, just need to have a block of time to thoughtfully respond. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fighter Class rewrite
Top