D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - The Fighter

[Tallifer]

Some of these designers have an awfully distorted and negative view of the Fourth Edition. But this writer contradicts his negative comparison of 4e with his own facts:

"In 4th Edition, the fighter’s focus shifted from total customization and instead grounded the fighter into a particular niche—a role that would continue until the slayer came along in the Essentials products. Again, the class focused on weapons, distinguishing them into two broad groups: two-handed weapons and sword-and-board. Later supplements expanded the fighter builds to allow berserkers (battleragers), two-weapon wielders (tempests), brawlers, and so on."

So he says Fighters were limited and then lists six very different builds. What he also does not realize is that those Fighter builds which have decent dexterity are as good an archer as any Fighter from a previous edition. And in fact the designers made magical throwing weapons very useful, so that every strong character had a good ranged weapon.

 

[paladinm]

Very well said, sir!

4e's "powers" system was an effort to even the playing field at all levels, and to give fighters (especially) something cool to do to keep up with the casters. I personally prefer allowing fighters (pure fighters, not paladins, etc.) the use of "feats" (maybe they should be called tactics?) These would be things that Only fighters could do, due to their extreme focus and training with a particular weapon (or group of weapons). This could be similar to 1e Unearthed Arcana's original concept of weapon mastery, which was only available to fighters (or cavaliers.. a whole nother story), unless you still want to give Rangers the 2-weapon fighting thing.

 

[DonAdam]

The thing that worries me about the 3e talk is that level by level customization usually meant +1 to this, +2 to that, +1 to the other thing, etc.

I really hope they make the baseline fighter have broadly applicable bonuses which can be given up for maneuvers or situation-specific bonuses. And by situation-specific, I absolutely don't mean weapon-specific, which is functionally equivalent to just giving bigger bonuses all the time.

 

[Sirot]

I miss not being able to make a kobold spear fighter or rogue without creating a god awful character.

 

[marleykat]

As I said at TBP I'm glad I have no dog in this hunt, but if pushed I think they should kill the Warlord take his stuff and give it to the Fighter. Also give him some skills outside direct physical stuff with more than 2 skill points a level for christsake!

I voted "Other" the choices presented were too narrow for how I envision a "Fighting Man".

 

[Serendipity]

A fighter should be the definitively best option in the game for combat, period. I mean, it's in their name. Melee, whatever. I can see a kit type system for fighters who want to be able to specialize (which I am not, and I love playing fighters) while not gimping all around, "combat is my business, business is good." fighters.

Also, I want to know what process they use to make those polls as unintuitive and useless as possible.

 

[Minigiant]

I want a versatile fighter. A fighter able to do every related to normal weapons combat.

But I do want some sort of unique feature that puts fighters at the top of the combat pyramid.

Just give the fighters a strong and unique class feature and sole access to an aspect of the combat world.

 

[Raith5]

Some of these designers have an awfully distorted and negative view of the Fourth Edition. But this writer contradicts his negative comparison of 4e with his own facts:

"In 4th Edition, the fighter’s focus shifted from total customization and instead grounded the fighter into a particular niche—a role that would continue until the slayer came along in the Essentials products. Again, the class focused on weapons, distinguishing them into two broad groups: two-handed weapons and sword-and-board. Later supplements expanded the fighter builds to allow berserkers (battleragers), two-weapon wielders (tempests), brawlers, and so on."

So he says Fighters were limited and then lists six very different builds. What he also does not realize is that those Fighter builds which have decent dexterity are as good an archer as any Fighter from a previous edition. And in fact the designers made magical throwing weapons very useful, so that every strong character had a good ranged weapon.

Agree with the idea that fighters should encompass and wide variety of styles of fighting, but weapons should play a key role in defining how he goes about fighting.

But I agree with Tallifer that this view about 4thed fighters is just completely and utterly messed up. The Dwarf Halberd fighter in my party is a a good defender, but can also also throw out stroker level damage with some of his powers and have some control powers with the reach of his weapon.

The level of customization in 4th ed was better because it was more than cosmetic, the powers enabled the fighter to really important things on the battle field that beyond beyond defending.

 

[BobTheNob]

I want to see the end of fighters needing to be "built" (i.e. pick these weapon talents and these feats). I want the fighter to be about versatility.

The ability to change it up in a fight and adapt. If an axe is the weapon to use, I want to see him pull out an axe, not say "Nah, I will just keep using my 2-handed sword, cause thats what all my feats are in". If the time has come to hold an enemy at bay (i.e. tank) take out your shield, not "Im all trained up in two handed weapons, so I wont pull out my shield".

However this is achieved, I want the fighter to be able to react in combat according to conditions rather than decisions he made when leveling up.

Now THATS a fighter I would want to play

 

[Sirot]

I would prefer that all the capabilities of the fighter were generalized and not tied to a certain weapon. A fighter should be equally capable with using a two-handed sword as he is with a axe and shield or with a bow. Maybe allow the fighter to focus in some areas in very broad strokes that are not weapon specific as much (e.g. charging attacks, impending movement, face punching).

I feel like weapon specialization should be the avenue of the other classes. You have rangers, rogues, barbarians who traditionally have certain weapons they prefer.