Specialist Fighters

[Leatherhead]

I am opposed to specialization of fighters. Because it breeds too many problems.

For instance, what happens when you don't have access to your axe? All of your class features and feats and powers are suddenly shut down. Which overnerfs them for any encounter where an axe isn't viable, like fighting a flying dragon.

Alternatively, what happens when their axe is the best weapon for the encounter? They overperform and sideline the other players, even other fighters who may be more generalized. And nobody likes being sidelined, just look at all the hate optimizers get.

Or the DM could simply use rule 0, and never have a fight with dragons or whatever in order to keep the party on an even keel. How stifling and boring.

I don't want specialization to exist in any significant capacity, because it will negatively impact the meta-game, there is just no way around it other than remove specialization.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are a lot of threads out there about how to "improve" the fighter...assuming, of course, that you are of the opinion that the fighter class needs to be improved at all.

One problem I've often seen with "the fighter sux" or "the fighter needs more whatever" is that the real balance problem is on the other side of the fulcrum: the caster having too much or being too vastly overpowered. Cutting down casters by a few orders of magnitude would do a lot more to make the game balanced and playable than turning fighters into wuxia/anime/superheroes.

I think the best way to add complexity and flavor to the Fighter class would be to do it with his catalog of weapons and armor. After all, these two things are what have set the Fighter class apart from all the rest in all editions of the game: the Fighter is the guy who can use all the weapons and wear all the armor. So why not focus on that, and make that dynamic more important?

It would be an interesting dynamic, if it were, indeed, dynamic. That is, if the fighter were likely to use different armor and weapon mixes for different missions, and use them in different ways according to his style and talents. You could have fighters that were both differentiated and versatile, that way. Of course, you'd still have overpowered casters to balance them against.

So what if the fighter could choose a type of weapon (say, Axes) and a type of armor (such as Light Shields) to "specialize" in, he gains a special technique that only he knows...like maybe being able to use the blade of an axe as a rudimentary shield when fighting defensively. And, it grants him extra maneuvers, in combat that only an Axe Specialist would know: stuff like spinning leg sweeps, bonuses against Plant creatures, vorpal blows, and so forth.

So, if the big deal of the fighter is his ability to use any weapons or armor, the way to build on that to make him more dynamic and interesting is to take away most of those in return for being uniquely better at one?

That's prettymuch what 3e did. It took the universe of everything a fighter-type might do, cut it up into dozens of feats, and gave the fighter 11 of them.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

A more interesting approach might be to have 'styles' that are much broader than using a single weapon or weapon-and-shield combination. Each style would have a variety of techniques - maneuvers or exploits or whatever semi-mythical vaporware 5e is going to use to somehow balance the fighter with the Vancian casters we've already seen - some usable with certain sorts of weapons.

The best example might be something like a Samurai. They used swords, pole-arms, and bows, a single two-handed weapon, or a weapon in each hand, relatively heavy armor or none at all, mounted or afoot, in pitched battles or formal duels or in self-defense against surprise attacks. A Samurai wielding a naginata would not use the same techniques as one fighting a duel with katanas or one using a bow from horseback.

By choosing the weapons and armor he employs in a given circumstance, such a fighter would be able to tailor his abilities, much like casters do by memorizing particular spells. You could even get away from the fighter's excessive heavy-armor dependence and open up more skills and exploration tasks that he could be good at, particularly when opting for lighter armor. A high level fighter with a bag of holding could carry a wider variety of armors and weapons, making him more adaptable, and really interesting/powerful items, like the classic Rod of Lordly Might that changes into several different weapons could give him even greater flexibility.

 

[CleverNickName]

One problem I've often seen with "the fighter sux" or "the fighter needs more whatever" is that the real balance problem is on the other side of the fulcrum: the caster having too much or being too vastly overpowered. Cutting down casters by a few orders of magnitude would do a lot more to make the game balanced and playable than turning fighters into wuxia/anime/superheroes.

Excellent point. However, from the playtest we can safely assume that wizards, etc. in D&D Next will be just as overpowered as they currently are in 3.x and 4E, though...even moreso, unless they do something about those at-will spells that pretty much make archery useless.

 

[keterys]

even moreso, unless they do something about those at-will spells that pretty much make archery useless.

A fighter could (and probably would) continue to select weapon feats for other weapons, for example...a sword specialist will still think Point Blank Shot is very handy.

I think these two points are pretty indicative of both experiencing a very different type of D&D, as well as an entirely different way of even looking at the system.

For example, the 4e wizard isn't effective because of his at-wills. And they certainly didn't outweigh being an archer, when the archer has longer range and deals more damage.

Ditto for reserve magic from 3e, though to a different extent.

Action economy is a big thing. Much like spending feats to make yourself better 95% of the time is probably better than making yourself better 5% of the time. If that.

From what I've been told, this is already how the 4E fighter (and the 3.5 Tome of Battle fighter) already works. Either way, I think I would prefer a less wuxia-style fighter in my game.

I assume you're good with a wuxia-style mage, however? I mean, what if instead you got a more literary mage who could do little more than prestidigitation and rituals. Maybe at truly high level he could, very, very occasionally, hurl a fireball.

Ie, like a Gandalf, who largely fights with a sword because spells aren't combat effective.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think these two points are pretty indicative of both experiencing a very different type of D&D, as well as an entirely different way of even looking at the system.

Agreed. But that doesn't really worry me all that much, since D&D Next seems like it will be modular enough to handle a wide variety of play styles. My hope is that one of these modules will be a weapon specialist fighter, who defines himself with a category of weapon in the same way that an Illusionist defines himself with his spell library, or a cleric defines himself with his choice of domains. As long as they keep it modular, I think it would bring a lot to the table for gamers like me...and not trample the toes of everyone else.

Re: 'Wuxia' mages:
I'm fine with the traditional D&D style of mage, I suppose. I would rather they have a different way of managing their resources (I like the MP system best, I'd settle for Vancian, but I don't really care for at-will/encounter/daily), but I'm okay with wizards using combat spells.

Re: at-will magic vs. archers:
Not every archer would trade shorter range and a few points of damage for weightless, one-handed, indestructible, semi-automatic crossbows that never need reloading...but I bet a great many of them would.

If the 5E cleric remains as-written in the playtest, I foresee a lot of my players cherry-picking it just to get the Radiant Lance. Which is not a problem, per se...it is just a different style of game than I'm used to. So I hope it is also modular, so that I am able to remove it without completely neutering the cleric.

 

[Old_Skool]

Not every archer would trade shorter range and a few points of damage for weightless, one-handed, indestructible, semi-automatic crossbows that never need reloading...but I bet a great many of them would.

Or to put it another way, which would you rather have in a gun fight: a bolt-action rifle and 20 rounds, or an automatic handgun that never jams and never needs reloading?

 

[keterys]

Re: at-will magic vs. archers:
Not every archer would trade shorter range and a few points of damage for weightless, one-handed, indestructible, semi-automatic crossbows that never need reloading...but I bet a great many of them would.

Depends. I haven't seen a lot of fighters choose to use improvised weapons without feat support (ie, less damage, less accuracy, less less... but can pick up anything and it works!) instead of swords or axes, but it's roughly equivalent.

The worries about mages are really about their actual spells, not their cantrips.

Much like the worries about fighters aren't how they're doing in the 200th round of the day, but how they're doing in those first 12 or so.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Or to put it another way, which would you rather have in a gun fight: a bolt-action rifle and 20 rounds, or an automatic handgun that never jams and never needs reloading?

Re: at-will magic vs. archers:
Not every archer would trade shorter range and a few points of damage for weightless, one-handed, indestructible, semi-automatic crossbows that never need reloading...but I bet a great many of them would.

Nice analogy. But largely flawed.

A 4E Ranger in his right mind would never trade Magic Missile against his Twin Shot. He would be rather MAD doing it and to deal any damage he would need an implement.
Furthermore, combat is most of the time rather short 4-8 rounds. As long as the ranger carries some 20ish arrows around he can complete the encounter. And during most encounters it does simply not matter wether you have 20 arrows or unlimited Magic Missiles because as long as you can supply yourself with arrows there is no gain in unlimited "ammunition".

So during most encounters damage/action is a better bet. My question is: who would use MM if he can use Twin Shot if this is the premise?


Regarding the actual topic...

I would like to see fighters that can use different "maneuvers" with different weapon types or gain effect riders for his normal attacks. Like the Guild Wars 2 weapon set swapping. What I don't want to experience is take a feat +1 to hit with swords, take one more feat +1 to hit with swords and so on. Because if I find a nice hammer I start looking at my attack value, my bonus damage, my crit chance, my... and probably will stick to my sword because it is still better.

 

[keterys]

Or to put it another way, which would you rather have in a gun fight: a bolt-action rifle and 20 rounds, or an automatic handgun that never jams and never needs reloading?

This comparison is somewhat flawed by the technology gap in the example.

That is to say, the bow is longer range, higher damage, and faster firing. It also never jams, and a PC can start with enough ammo to probably see them through an entire campaign.

So... would you rather have a crossbow or musket that never misfires nor requires ammunition, ever, or a bolt action rifle with 200 shots, with the assumption that you can go back to town every 40 shots?

Meh. Depends a little bit on the campaign. Maybe in .5% of campaigns you'd want the infinite ammo option, cause it's that kind of campaign. Of course, in those campaigns you might _not be a ranged character_ or might not want a wizard because frankly you can't be sure about obtaining rests, spell components, scrolls to work on your spellbook, etc. Or you'd arrange to get an infinite ammo quiver or bow, or use very good ammo recovery mechanisms: something that isn't necessarily that hard to get.

Dunno, never run into it - not even in "Going into the Underdark and never coming back" campaigns.

 

[CleverNickName]

So during most encounters damage/action is a better bet. My question is: who would use MM if he can use Twin Shot if this is the premise?

I was talking about the Radiant Lance spell. MM is in a class all its own. It's more like a low-caliber handgun that never jams, never needs reloading, and doesn't even need to be aimed.

[MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] is right when (s)he said that it is the first twelve rounds that count...most encounters are over in less than 10 rounds. But this is assuming that the fighter with the rifle gets to replenish its bullets for free after each encounter (or after resting, or whatever). Otherwise, the fighter with the rifle is going to be out of ammo before 10 a.m. but the mage with the handgun is still shooting.

It's not "bad design;" it's just a playstyle that I'm not used to.

Regarding the actual topic...

I would like to see fighters that can use different "maneuvers" with different weapon types or gain effect riders for his normal attacks. Like the Guild Wars 2 weapon set swapping. What I don't want to experience is take a feat +1 to hit with swords, take one more feat +1 to hit with swords and so on. Because if I find a nice hammer I start looking at my attack value, my bonus damage, my crit chance, my... and probably will stick to my sword because it is still better.

Yeah, the stacking bonuses thing is a holdover from years of playing 3.5E, and should probably be revised. I don't mind the bonuses against special attacks and maneuvers (Opposed rolls, Trip, Disarm, Sunder, etc.), but I agree that there are already too many ways to buff a standard attack roll. The point was to give the fighter a small nudge with the weapon he chooses to specialize in.

What did you think of the granted powers for Hammers, Axes, etc., that I posted previously? Like a hammer specialist being able to knock his opponents prone, or an axe specialist getting a shield bonus when fighting defensively? I think these abilities are closer to what I think of when I think "specialist." Not a generic +whatever bonus, or a "I can only do this once today" trick.