D&D 5E Hopes for the 5E Fighter

[Dragonblade]

So core 'theifly' abilities might be some thing like:

"Add your class level as a bonus to hit against any foe you have combat advantage on. Additionally, you may apply one combat perk to each attack you make against this foe even if you don't know that perk, provided you meet all the perks prequisites."

But I'm pretty happy on the whole to just consider the rogue to be a particular diverse selection of mundane abilities provided that the system doesn't, as stock 3e tended to, suggest that spells are just simply better than skill.

So going back to my token idea, you could do something like "When a Rogue has combat advantage, "grit" tokens expended to boost damage do +2 per token expended instead of +1" or something like that.

Or when a Rogue has combat advantage they gain X bonus grit tokens for that round that can be spent against that foe to do things like bonus damage, forced movement, or other stunts.

 

[Celebrim]

So going back to my token idea, you could do something like "When a Rogue has combat advantage, "grit" tokens expended to boost damage do +2 per token expended instead of +1" or something like that.

While I'm not sold on the notion of tokens, yeah, that's the idea.

 

[Aeolius]

I loved a lot of both the core ideas of 3E and many of the ideas implemented in its later books like the Tome of Battle...

I side with those who hope that any options such as those presented in ToB are kept strictly optional. ToB was by far my least favorite 3e/3.5e supplement. In fact, after reading through it, I do not think I ever touched it again. But hey, to each their own.

 

[Celebrim]

I side with those who hope that any options such as those presented in ToB are kept strictly optional. ToB was by far my least favorite 3e/3.5e supplement. In fact, after reading through it, I do not think I ever touched it again. But hey, to each their own.

ToB presented some solutions to some problems, and along the way helped improve the 'balance'* between high level martial classes and high level spellcasters, but it wasn't at all the sort of solution I was looking for.

*I write balance in quotes here because it is a bit of stretch to claim high level spellcasters were balanced in stock 3.Xe in the first place. Rather, ToB tended to embrase 3.5e's philosophy, "If everything is broken, then nothing is." But personally, I don't see balance as something that is defensible in your system on the grounds that there is always something N+1 more broken for all N.

In short, I understand why some people prefer it to stock 3.X, but I get really frustrated when people suggest ToB as the only possible and most obvious solution to the fighters don't get good things problem. There are settings for which 'Fighters are spellcasters too' makes sense, DragonBallZ, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and those games may be fun, but I don't want it as the generic D&D option. Fighters as spellcasters just doesn't feel like D&D to me, though I'm perfectly happy to have the option in a supplement for those that want it.

And I'm sure I'm now going to have to defend the claim that Warblade is a spellcasting class... again.

 

[Gort]

So going back to my token idea, you could do something like "When a Rogue has combat advantage, "grit" tokens expended to boost damage do +2 per token expended instead of +1" or something like that.

Or when a Rogue has combat advantage they gain X bonus grit tokens for that round that can be spent against that foe to do things like bonus damage, forced movement, or other stunts.

I played Iron Heroes, it wasn't much cop.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Book of 9 swords was cool, it made a great new set of classes, but none of them were fighters. I don't mind the idea of a swordsage in 5e, as long as it is along side the fighter.

haveing said that,
When did my fighter stop being a fighter? Ok so in the roles thread there is talk about there always being roles in D&D, and I won’t argue whether or not that is true, but let’s say that is true. I remember sitting down and putting a lot of effort into my fighter. She wielded the best weapons, and of course specialized in it. Now what did specialization do, well it gave more attacks, and more static bonus to hit and damage.

Now fast forward to 4e, if I want to play the multi attacking static bonus thing do I go fighter? No, even the slayer (big weapon striker fighter, so closer to what I want) really does not multi attack, in fact to get multi attacks as a fighter I have to use small weapons.
Now I don’t need my great axe to attack once this turn twice next turn (although I would not mind that) but different weapons use to have different rates of attack. My wizard loved to throw multi darts, and my everything loved having long bows with 2/1 and 3/1 attacks.
People on the 4e op board speak of the ranger as the best striker in the game because he can multi attack and stack static bonus to hit and damage. Wasn’t that the fighter thing?

 

[Gort]

Book of 9 swords was cool, it made a great new set of classes, but none of them were fighters. I don't mind the idea of a swordsage in 5e, as long as it is along side the fighter.

haveing said that,
When did my fighter stop being a fighter? Ok so in the roles thread there is talk about there always being roles in D&D, and I won’t argue whether or not that is true, but let’s say that is true. I remember sitting down and putting a lot of effort into my fighter. She wielded the best weapons, and of course specialized in it. Now what did specialization do, well it gave more attacks, and more static bonus to hit and damage.

Now fast forward to 4e, if I want to play the multi attacking static bonus thing do I go fighter? No, even the slayer (big weapon striker fighter, so closer to what I want) really does not multi attack, in fact to get multi attacks as a fighter I have to use small weapons.
Now I don’t need my great axe to attack once this turn twice next turn (although I would not mind that) but different weapons use to have different rates of attack. My wizard loved to throw multi darts, and my everything loved having long bows with 2/1 and 3/1 attacks.
People on the 4e op board speak of the ranger as the best striker in the game because he can multi attack and stack static bonus to hit and damage. Wasn’t that the fighter thing?

You seem to have a huge attachment to the word "fighter". Might I suggest playing the class that fits your preconceptions best and simply writing "fighter" in the class box? You'll probably be happier in the long run.

PS: Multiple attacks at a -5 penalty per attack were awful, I hope those never see the light of day again.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

You seem to have a huge attachment to the word "fighter". Might I suggest playing the class that fits your preconceptions best and simply writing "fighter" in the class box? You'll probably be happier in the long run.

I think you miss understand me. I will play a barbarian, a warblade, or a sonofabitch if it means I can multi attack with my large weapon. But no class in 4e can that I found.

I just have to look at the ranger still multi attacks (two weapon fighting was there in 2e) but the fighter lost it.

The ranger who fights with 2 longswords, or 2 scimitars (like a drow elf I am in love with) is great, but the greatsword, fullblade, or excution axe are all nos.

PS: Multiple attacks at a -5 penalty per attack were awful, I hope those never see the light of day again.

3e, yea dark days.

 

[Gort]

Christ, why are you now posting in pink?

 

[Celebrim]

PS: Multiple attacks at a -5 penalty per attack were awful, I hope those never see the light of day again.

I didn't mind it too much, but I'd be willing to let the iterative attack die provided a suitable elegant replacement was found. Some ideas from 4e might be useful in that regard.