The Playtest Fighter

[Sunseeker]

I disagree entirely. The game is going to need a basic class that anyone can jump into and feel like they are contributing. There shouldn't be any need for 'system mastery' to enter into a person's first game. They should be handed a single sheet of paper (a HUGE plus imo to the playtest fighter) and told this is everything you need to play. This is exactly how I view this fighter - a way to get someone who has never played a chance to sit down and play with minimal rule reading and page flipping. The characters for the 'advanced' players are the wizard and clerics. The Rogue is a middle ground PC. I have no doubt there will be other themes and builds to the fighter to give you the options you crave but this 'basic' fighter isn't meant to be it.

There should be "basic" wizards and "basic" clerics as well.

"Go and hit stuff with your sword" doesn't always appeal to folks, it shouldn't be assumed that the fighter is the "starter" class. I mean, I've played Fighters and Paladins and Knights and Rogues and Rangers and just about every melee class under the sun. But you know what's still tricky for me?

3.X spellcasting. There's no "basic wizard" I can jump into and learn on. It's all this idea that melee is dumb and easy and casting is complex and hard. That's why I love 4th ed. It eliminated this entirely. All classes use the same mechanics for resolution, so you can start out in any class and have the same learning curve.

I'm not going to buy another edition that advocates melee simplicity and caster complexity.

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

I understand what you're getting at, but if stunts are supposed to be a big part of the class, common stunts need to be balanced and not left up to the DM. How pushing, feinting and other stuff you're likely to be doing works needs to be playtested on a common ground for the class to function independent of whatever DM is at the table.

I mean, why don't we just have spells be Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma based checks and leave it to the DM to see if they're cool with it?

First, let me say I completely agree with your status, my motto is "Don't do today what can be postponed till tomorrow"

What I mean here, and I believe you got it, is that as a DM and a PC I always felt the power's structure of 4E (while quite perfect on paper) as a limitation. I know it sounds strange and I’ll try to explain this at the best of my possibility – sorry not native English speaking. With the huge amount of options available to all players the end result (always in my humble experience) is that it is very difficult for the players and the DM alike to come up with some creative solutions which are not contemplated by the rules. How can I easily rule - as a DM – or imagine - as player – a stunt which is then ruled elsewhere (maybe even in some other classes’ powers) in the manuals with such precise mechanical details? While in my opinion a good D&D game has always been influenced by how good the DM is, in 4E I experienced something never happening in any of the previous editions (or happening very rarely) and which is very bad in my opinion: the players telling the DM – no, you aren’t supposed to be doing/allowing this. In 4E they felt this is DM’s judgment call as “breaking the rules” and strongly – very strongly - oppose it, while in my opinion it should be rule number 1. The “Improvise” action rule just made me smile.

I always considered this game as a “let’s build fun together” not a DM VS players thing and it seems to me that there are many players out there (but again, this is something I consider completely acceptable, is a GOOD thing that each of us has its own opinions) who seems to be afraid to be put in disadvantage in their contest VS the world/DM. Playing along with the DM and create a story together is fun to me.

What I want to say at the end of the day is referring more to the goals they are aiming to than to the specific fighter's issue, I apologize for it

Also, we have been warned repeatedly that the fighter build is the “simple” one, needed to test the basic rules more than giving a full overview of how the fighter will work in the final stage. Playtest

Finally, I really like this forum discussions but from time to time it seems that having a different opinion means I am put in the “here come another stupid lad” category, I really would love having a more relaxed thoughts’ share .

 

[Kinak]

Now, in 3e/Pathfinder it's commonly accepted that wizards, clerics, and druids (i.e. the full Vancian classes) are the most powerful. However, they never get played in the group I GM for.

That's not because people hate Vancian magic, although that doesn't help. It's because they're just too fiddly and complicated, with so much going on on the character sheet that people lose track of the world. They had much the same problem with 4e, looking to the character sheet for everything.

There's an important role for simple characters to play. We have one new player, but also a player who worked on d20 products professionally and others who've been playing since 2nd edition. But any character with 4e-level on sheet complexity just won't get played by my group.

So I'm cheered to see really simple characters at first level. Complexity will creep up as we go, but I have at least two characters I could hand to my players. With fewer spells, I might even be able to hand them the wizard or cleric, but I kind of doubt it.

3.X spellcasting. There's no "basic wizard" I can jump into and learn on. It's all this idea that melee is dumb and easy and casting is complex and hard.

This I definitely agree with, though. Although, sorcerers see some play in my group as "basic wizards."

If we can get casters (or at least characters that fill the same roles in the game world) that start as simple as the rogue and fighter here, I'll be a very happy camper. And, like Pathfinder, it doesn't really matter if the complicated versions are totally broken because nobody in my game is going to play them.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Danzauker]

I disagree entirely. The game is going to need a basic class that anyone can jump into and feel like they are contributing. There shouldn't be any need for 'system mastery' to enter into a person's first game.

True, but that could be said of EVERY class. Why should it be the fighter?

Personally, I know more people willing to play a wizard of sort than a fighter.

There's as much need for a wizard that can only wiggle it's wand around yelling "expecto patronum" as there is for a fighter that can only bash enemies.

 

[Faraer]

This is the line between those who like variety of action to be represented by human narration and improvisation, and those who want it encoded in micromanaging rules. This game is evidently trying to serve both, and as a very experienced player who has not the least wish to choose between rules-defined manoeuvres each round of combat, this is the first new official D&D that I feel some enthusiasm for in quite a while.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now, in 3e/Pathfinder it's commonly accepted that wizards, clerics, and druids (i.e. the full Vancian classes) are the most powerful. However, they never get played in the group I GM for.

That's not because people hate Vancian magic, although that doesn't help. It's because they're just too fiddly and complicated, with so much going on on the character sheet that people lose track of the world. They had much the same problem with 4e, looking to the character sheet for everything.

Out of curiosity, have you looked at Essentials? Seriously this is a solved problem in 4e to the point I'd consider a PF martial class has a more complex character sheet than any of the Essentials Martial classes (Thief, Ranger (Archer or Two Weapon), Fighter (Sword + Board defender or Beatstick)), the eDruid (two at will combat options - druid hits and pet bites - with the encounter option being both), and elementalist sorceror.

If we can get casters (or at least characters that fill the same roles in the game world) that start as simple as the rogue and fighter here, I'll be a very happy camper.

Steal the Elementalist Sorceror from post-Essentials 4e You get two attack spells (and a third at ninth). The first is a single target ranged zap with your element of choice. The second is an AoE boom of some sort with your element of choice. Both at will. You then get to make them bigger a few times per fight. Add in a utility power every few levels starting at second level, and you're about done. (OK, stats and feats - same as here).

You'll never get utility casters to be simple but that's part of the point of them.

And had the Elementalist turned up as the fifth playtest class (even if called a wizard) I'd have been a lot less worried than I am about a game where the simple class is the fighter.

 

[Kinak]

Out of curiosity, have you looked at Essentials? Seriously this is a solved problem in 4e to the point I'd consider a PF martial class has a more complex character sheet than any of the Essentials Martial classes (Thief, Ranger (Archer or Two Weapon), Fighter (Sword + Board defender or Beatstick)), the eDruid (two at will combat options - druid hits and pet bites - with the encounter option being both), and elementalist sorceror.

I haven't had a chance to try it, no. Our group was already pretty deep into Pathfinder by the time Essentials rolled around.

From what I understand about it, I agree it sounds to be right up our alley.

And had the Elementalist turned up as the fifth playtest class (even if called a wizard) I'd have been a lot less worried than I am about a game where the simple class is the fighter.

If they go the "every class that's ever showed up a (first) PHB" route that was being discussed, I think we'll probably do fine. Either the sorcerer or the warlock almost has to be an easy caster class.

It would have been nice to see something other than (or in addition to) a second cleric, but I see the method in their madness.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[jshaft37]

Out of curiosity, have you looked at Essentials? Seriously this is a solved problem in 4e to the point I'd consider a PF martial class has a more complex character sheet than any of the Essentials Martial classes (Thief, Ranger (Archer or Two Weapon), Fighter (Sword + Board defender or Beatstick)), the eDruid (two at will combat options - druid hits and pet bites - with the encounter option being both), and elementalist sorceror.

Steal the Elementalist Sorceror from post-Essentials 4e You get two attack spells (and a third at ninth). The first is a single target ranged zap with your element of choice. The second is an AoE boom of some sort with your element of choice. Both at will. You then get to make them bigger a few times per fight. Add in a utility power every few levels starting at second level, and you're about done. (OK, stats and feats - same as here).

You'll never get utility casters to be simple but that's part of the point of them.

And had the Elementalist turned up as the fifth playtest class (even if called a wizard) I'd have been a lot less worried than I am about a game where the simple class is the fighter.

Definitely agree. Essentials characters are extremely well done and only need a touch of tweaking to fit perfectly into D&D Next. Remove the grid reliance and associated conditions and they are perfect.

 

[darjr]

Let me quote the best 5E fighter's post I read so far (in particular the first paragraph), from the wizards forum:

"People. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)"

Something explaing this needs to be the fighter class section of the PHB and in the DMG. Way less confrontational, yes, but I think it should be spelled out right there in the core. I haven't had a chance to read the playtest DMG, is it in there? It might even need to be on the fighters character sheet.

 

[Eric Tolle]

So basically, the fighter sucks less if he does stuff that isn't in his class description. Be still my beating heart.Meanwhile the wizard gets at will spells that can stop foes dead in their tracks. Combine this with the sloppiness of the arnie and weapon tables and it's obvious fighter is punishment duty.

Obviously the designers must have been beaten up a lot by jocks in school.