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

[exile]

I think the fighter should approach the ranger in terms of number of skills, but not quite match him. What could perhaps set them apart is the nature of available skills, maybe giving the ranger a few more lore/knowledge type skills, or giving the ranger bonuses to woodsy/wilderness skills.

What should really set the ranger apart are favored enemies and favored terrains, the option to acquire an animal companion, the option to acquire spells.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Pathfinder ranger has the option of picking up some tactics type abilities (maybe similar to what the ranger/hunter type had in Irone Heroes). Maybe when the warlord gets killed, his stuff should get split up between the fighter and teh ranger.

Someone mentioned a skirmish ability and I think that's not a bad idea. Didn't the 3.5 scout do extra damage when he moved on the same round as the attack? Yes, I recall playing a Scout who did just that-- and having a lot of fun with that ability.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It only looks like wholesale discounting of 4E because most of 4E probably falls under the 'advance tactical combat modules' and not the base game, and thus they haven't gotten around to working on it yet. The base game is just that. The base. The stuff they created back in Basic D&D. 4E is an obvious evolution from the base, so it makes perfect sense that a lot of what is being worked on now will not take 4E into account.

Once they finish designing the 'base' fighter and they start working on combat exploits, defender abilities, etc. etc... then we'll see more of the main 4E foci start reappearing.

The problem with this is that 4E introduced a lot of good, useful stuff that is much more in the realm of "base game" than "tactical combat module". Character creation options, roles, giving characters fun stuff to do, balance, class concepts... Whether you like them or hate them, these are things that existed at the core of the system, independent from things like tactical movement and finnicky bonuses you track from round to round. A lot of it is not stuf you can simply add on later after a base game is already created.

Put simply, if they only start worrying about appealing to 4E fans once a "tactical combat" module is out, then it is probably too late.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The fighting man as he existed in the original game is still the best model for a basic fighter.

Quite simply, a fighter fights. Any weapon, any situation, the fighter is the go to guy for violence.

Think of a D&D party as a Leverage crew, the fighter is Elliot plain and simple.

Versatility is what makes the fighter so useful. That combined with a reasonable bonus system (non-bloated) means you can make so many character types out of the fighter that you don't need a half dozen classes to quantify them.

Does your fighter have a good DEX and like to shoot a bow? Great you have an archer. You don't need umpteen rules just to highlight that simultaneously gimp the poor guy if he ever needs to grab that greatsword and go to work.

Within that basic structure of all around martial competency lies room for all different kinds of themes. The knight, the berserker, the swashbuckler, the common soldier and many others can all be played by the basic fighter.

The more mechanical focus that is brought about by hyper specialization, the less options you have for different situations. This is especially true if the math of the game assumes such specialization and factors it in to the overall design!

What that means is that the character you made to be really awesome at something is instead merely competent, and downright crappy at anything outside the chosen narrow specialty. These are the consequences of numbers bloat.

I hope we can return to a fighter that is all around good at fighting.

 

[JohnSnow]

The problem with this is that 4E introduced a lot of good, useful stuff that is much more in the realm of "base game" than "tactical combat module". Character creation options, roles, giving characters fun stuff to do, balance, class concepts... Whether you like them or hate them, these are things that existed at the core of the system, independent from things like tactical movement and finnicky bonuses you track from round to round. A lot of it is not stuf you can simply add on later after a base game is already created.

Put simply, if they only start worrying about appealing to 4E fans once a "tactical combat" module is out, then it is probably too late.

True, but you need to figure out a way to keep the good of 4e (balance, versatility, options) without bringing in the bad parts - like pigeon-holing, and over-specialization. The fact that just about every 4e weapon-using class had to pick a single weapon and stick with it is pretty telling that something was awry with the system. Wizard didn't have to choose between cold and fire spells!

I support the concept of a fighter that has enough skills and is broadly defined so that it can be the swashbuckler, the knight, the longbowman, the soldier, AND the mercenary swordsman. Maybe he should have the option to specialize in a particular weapon or style, but he shouldn't necessarily HAVE to. Just my opinion.

 

[Sunseeker]

I support the concept of a fighter that has enough skills and is broadly defined so that it can be the swashbuckler, the knight, the longbowman, the soldier, AND the mercenary swordsman. Maybe he should have the option to specialize in a particular weapon or style, but he shouldn't necessarily HAVE to. Just my opinion.

Specialization should be the choice of the character, but likewise, there should be some kind of point to doing so over being the any-fighter other than just showing off how swashbucklery you are.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'd like to see fighters get more unique flavor. Previously, the only unique thing they had was weapon specialization. Having nothing but bonus feats was just boring. I think 4e did a pretty good job of giving the fighter flavor; but I hated the class roles in that game. Not all fighters should have to be "defenders." I want to play a fighter who gets in there and beats the crap out of the bad guys, not one who sits back serving as the meat shield for the cowering wizard and archer. If people want to play a defender fighter, that's great. There should be plenty of options for that. But people should also be able to play a fighter that is brutally offensive as well.

 

[Hassassin]

The Figher should be the best class at using any weapon style. Other martial classes can match the Fighter in one or two styles, but not surpass him.

 

[Kingreaper]

If people want to play a defender fighter, that's great. There should be plenty of options for that. But people should also be able to play a fighter that is brutally offensive as well.

This is why I think Subclasses would be great.

The Fighter as the versatile overclass, equivalent to the Wizard.

And then Subclasses: Knight, Archer, Skirmisher(could be a rogue subclass, or even both), Berserker(could be a barbarian subclass)

With more in later books.

Just as the wizard could have subclasses like Illusionist, Battlemage etc.

 

[Minigiant]

The fighter should be the "human" of D&D classes. They can switch between fighting styles, weapons, and tactics OR focus on a few.

Each fighting style and weapon should have their own strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Every other class is stuck with whatever style and weapons their class prefers. Moving out that style requires a lot of resources.

The fighter and ranger can snipe the orc shaman from afar with a longbow.

The fighter and warlord can keep away the pet wolves with longspears.

The fighter and rogue can stab the ogre's hand with it grapples them with a pair of daggers.

The fighter and cleric bash the shaman's skeletons to bits with a mace and heavy shield.

The fighter and barbarian can cleave through multiple orc warriors with greataxes.

The paladin and paladin can duel the orc chieftain's elite bodyguards with swords and light shields.

But only the fighter can employ all these strategies against the orc chieftain when the time comes.

 

[Zaukrie]

I've never played a fighter, but I've watched a lot of people play one....and the I think it is a super hard class to build, and keep interesting and not one dimensional. I agree with the general statement in the blog, that this class is so diverse and open to most anything, that it becomes hard to build.

That said, the 4E fighter looks more interesting to me to play, but that's because he doesn't JUST walk up to someone and start hitting them until they die, which is what some of the earlier incarnations looked like to me. That said, I rarely see a 4E fighter use a ranged weapon, which kind of makes me sad.