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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Warrior
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: 7064711" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>I'll be presenting my updated <strong>Warrior</strong> class (a revision of the Fighter), which I'd begun but lost during the database crash. My biggest challenge is keeping the page count down – because it was easily as lengthy as the latest Mystic Unearthed Arcana (~ 30 pages).</p><p></p><p>Here are my design goals:</p><p></p><p><strong><em>The Warrior is as Simple or Complex as the Player Likes.</em></strong> Players can recreate fighters from any previous edition that feel very similar to OD&D, AD&D, Basic, 3e, or 4e fighters based on their choices during character creation between passive talents, active talents, stances and martial archetypes. You can create a warrior whose abilities you micro-manage at the table or a warrior who just swings his axe all day, and not be penalized for your choice.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>The Warrior Feels Visceral, Believable, Dynamic, and Powerful in Battle.</em></strong> The warrior offers differentiation of various fighting styles according to weapon type, using Western Martial Arts for inspiration. In particular, active fighting talents echo “weapon mastery” originally found in Basic D&D and merge it with a version of 4e powers free from the artificial At-Will/Encounter/Daily structure.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>The Warrior Keeps His/Her Guard Up.</em></strong> I removed the innate healing of Second Wind, instead relying on Parry (and for some archetypes temporary hit points) as a practiced “guard” to keep the warrior from falling. This provides increased survivability without potential dissonance of non-magical healing, and creates a simple mechanic which can be referenced in other areas.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>The Warrior Does More than Just Fight.</em></strong> The warrior gets camp talents (siloed apart from fighting talents) which give exploration benefits to the party. While the ranger seeks the horizon, the warrior protects the hearth.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>The Warrior’s Life is Full of Glory.</em></strong> The Prestige feature and various warrior archetype features offer ways to emphasize the trope of the warrior gaining fame, fortune, and respect above other characters.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>The Warrior of Many Tales.</em></strong> The 8 martial archetypes presented herein — Borderlands Guard, Cavalier, Destined Hero, Monster Slayer, Swashbuckler, Veteran, Warlord, and Weapons Master — have more evocative stories than the PHB martial archetypes, helping to determine the warrior’s place within the campaign. One of the regrets I have about the PHB is how many subclass choices Clerics and Wizards get, and how comparatively few Fighters and Rogues get (I would do the same for rogues, but I only have so much energy/time!).</p><p></p><p><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/1898_Vasnetsov_Bogatyrs_anagoria.JPG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px">Questions/Assumptions</span></strong></p><p>We had a vigorous poll/discussion about the merits of how the fighter class was designed for 5e as well as previous editions. I'd like to pick that back up. "The Fighter" is an ongoing debate online, so it would be great if we bring our best selves to the discussion, keep open minds, and maintain a civil conversation. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></p><p></p><p>There were 3 questions raised about the 5e fighter (and this has been discussed in other editions as well):</p><p></p><p>(1) Regardless of any theory, is it fun in actual play?</p><p><em>I think it's fun, and IIRC from the previous poll/discussion a lot of people agreed with that. I also think it could be "more fun."</em></p><p></p><p>(2) Is it "balanced" compared to other fighting-type classes? Is it "balanced" compared to spellcaster classes?</p><p><em>When discussing "balance" let's try to be clear about what sense we're using it in. For example, a lot of people say "balance" when they mean "DPR under rather specific assumptions" or "can't do as much defined cool non-combat stuff compared to a wizard."</em></p><p></p><p>(3) Does it have a distinct enough identity? </p><p><em>Mike Mearls mentioned on a TomeShow interview that he regretted the fighter subclasses lacking the identity that the subclasses of other classes have.</em></p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px">Design Philosophy</span></strong></p><p></p><p>I think there is a fundamental "philosophical" difference when it comes to the Fighter class.</p><p></p><p>As near as I can pin it down (and I'm sure there are individual permutations), there is one school of thought — <strong>Traditionalist Fighter</strong> — rooted in the oldest wargaming tradition that echoes through D&D. It goes like this:</p><p></p><p>[SECTION]The Fighter has traditionally been the most generic class serving as a container for the most diverse martial character concepts in D&D. Moreover, this is how it should be. Because to do otherwise would insert flavor into the Fighter that would limit the number of concepts it can handle. Thus, the mandate of the Fighter's design should be limited to fighting.[/SECTION]</p><p></p><p>Opposing this school of thought is another — <strong>Multiple Fighting Classes</strong> — that was embodied in Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. It goes something like this:</p><p></p><p>[SECTION]The Fighter has been a generic container for far too many martial character concepts. By contrast, magic-users in D&D have been differentiated into Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard, while the Fighter remains stuck trying to accommodate too many concepts. This leads to a diluted generic design by necessity. Instead, we should have multiple martial classes instead of or in addition to the Fighter, focusing on more specific character concepts.[/SECTION]</p><p></p><p>Finally, there's a school of thought that I've been advocating — <strong>The Warrior</strong> — which can be viewed as lying somewhere between these two views and also on a completely different chart from them. It goes like this:</p><p></p><p>[SECTION]The Fighter feels generic and lacking a distinct identity to some players because it doesn't say anything meaningful about the character's place in the world or society. "Warrior" is a better name (and design imperative) because it implies a different design approach focusing on the totality of warfare (not just combat) and the context of the character within a culture that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste. This conception helps design to accommodate the breadth of martial character concepts without falling into the trap of being too generic or pigeonholing the class to a too narrow definition.[/SECTION]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7064711, member: 20323"] I'll be presenting my updated [B]Warrior[/B] class (a revision of the Fighter), which I'd begun but lost during the database crash. My biggest challenge is keeping the page count down – because it was easily as lengthy as the latest Mystic Unearthed Arcana (~ 30 pages). Here are my design goals: [B][I]The Warrior is as Simple or Complex as the Player Likes.[/I][/B] Players can recreate fighters from any previous edition that feel very similar to OD&D, AD&D, Basic, 3e, or 4e fighters based on their choices during character creation between passive talents, active talents, stances and martial archetypes. You can create a warrior whose abilities you micro-manage at the table or a warrior who just swings his axe all day, and not be penalized for your choice. [B][I]The Warrior Feels Visceral, Believable, Dynamic, and Powerful in Battle.[/I][/B] The warrior offers differentiation of various fighting styles according to weapon type, using Western Martial Arts for inspiration. In particular, active fighting talents echo “weapon mastery” originally found in Basic D&D and merge it with a version of 4e powers free from the artificial At-Will/Encounter/Daily structure. [B][I]The Warrior Keeps His/Her Guard Up.[/I][/B] I removed the innate healing of Second Wind, instead relying on Parry (and for some archetypes temporary hit points) as a practiced “guard” to keep the warrior from falling. This provides increased survivability without potential dissonance of non-magical healing, and creates a simple mechanic which can be referenced in other areas. [B][I]The Warrior Does More than Just Fight.[/I][/B] The warrior gets camp talents (siloed apart from fighting talents) which give exploration benefits to the party. While the ranger seeks the horizon, the warrior protects the hearth. [B][I]The Warrior’s Life is Full of Glory.[/I][/B] The Prestige feature and various warrior archetype features offer ways to emphasize the trope of the warrior gaining fame, fortune, and respect above other characters. [B][I]The Warrior of Many Tales.[/I][/B] The 8 martial archetypes presented herein — Borderlands Guard, Cavalier, Destined Hero, Monster Slayer, Swashbuckler, Veteran, Warlord, and Weapons Master — have more evocative stories than the PHB martial archetypes, helping to determine the warrior’s place within the campaign. One of the regrets I have about the PHB is how many subclass choices Clerics and Wizards get, and how comparatively few Fighters and Rogues get (I would do the same for rogues, but I only have so much energy/time!). [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/1898_Vasnetsov_Bogatyrs_anagoria.JPG[/img] [center]◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆[/center] [b][size=3]Questions/Assumptions[/size][/b] We had a vigorous poll/discussion about the merits of how the fighter class was designed for 5e as well as previous editions. I'd like to pick that back up. "The Fighter" is an ongoing debate online, so it would be great if we bring our best selves to the discussion, keep open minds, and maintain a civil conversation. B-) There were 3 questions raised about the 5e fighter (and this has been discussed in other editions as well): (1) Regardless of any theory, is it fun in actual play? [i]I think it's fun, and IIRC from the previous poll/discussion a lot of people agreed with that. I also think it could be "more fun."[/i] (2) Is it "balanced" compared to other fighting-type classes? Is it "balanced" compared to spellcaster classes? [i]When discussing "balance" let's try to be clear about what sense we're using it in. For example, a lot of people say "balance" when they mean "DPR under rather specific assumptions" or "can't do as much defined cool non-combat stuff compared to a wizard."[/i] (3) Does it have a distinct enough identity? [i]Mike Mearls mentioned on a TomeShow interview that he regretted the fighter subclasses lacking the identity that the subclasses of other classes have.[/i] [center]◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆[/center] [b][size=3]Design Philosophy[/size][/b] I think there is a fundamental "philosophical" difference when it comes to the Fighter class. As near as I can pin it down (and I'm sure there are individual permutations), there is one school of thought — [B]Traditionalist Fighter[/B] — rooted in the oldest wargaming tradition that echoes through D&D. It goes like this: [SECTION]The Fighter has traditionally been the most generic class serving as a container for the most diverse martial character concepts in D&D. Moreover, this is how it should be. Because to do otherwise would insert flavor into the Fighter that would limit the number of concepts it can handle. Thus, the mandate of the Fighter's design should be limited to fighting.[/SECTION] Opposing this school of thought is another — [B]Multiple Fighting Classes[/B] — that was embodied in Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. It goes something like this: [SECTION]The Fighter has been a generic container for far too many martial character concepts. By contrast, magic-users in D&D have been differentiated into Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard, while the Fighter remains stuck trying to accommodate too many concepts. This leads to a diluted generic design by necessity. Instead, we should have multiple martial classes instead of or in addition to the Fighter, focusing on more specific character concepts.[/SECTION] Finally, there's a school of thought that I've been advocating — [B]The Warrior[/B] — which can be viewed as lying somewhere between these two views and also on a completely different chart from them. It goes like this: [SECTION]The Fighter feels generic and lacking a distinct identity to some players because it doesn't say anything meaningful about the character's place in the world or society. "Warrior" is a better name (and design imperative) because it implies a different design approach focusing on the totality of warfare (not just combat) and the context of the character within a culture that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste. This conception helps design to accommodate the breadth of martial character concepts without falling into the trap of being too generic or pigeonholing the class to a too narrow definition.[/SECTION] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Warrior
Top