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

[mudbunny]

One could argue that the tank in modern warfare is, with the advent of reactive armor, is actually the tank.

They go onto the field of battle, and they force people to deal with them or bad things happen to them.

That being said, trying to argue that a tank shouldn't exist in game combat because the same concept doesn't exist in real-world combat while having no problem with the extensive list of elements in D&D that have no equivalent in real-world combat is, in my opinion, a rather intellectually dishonest point to take.

 

[Miyagi]

Asymmetry

I tend to think that this is where editions differ most. I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile the fighter as "the guy who hacks at things with an axe until they die, and only that" with the fighter as "the tactical guy who solves enemies like puzzles and tactics his way out". The second could include the first, but I doubt the reverse is possible.

This is only worsened by the problem that some people limit what a fighter can do to "mundane-only" actions, which means that after a while he and the wizard can't play in the same game. How long that while is depends on when spellcasters get certain abilities - it never seems to depend on the fighter's own advancement.

 

[Kynn]

In my opinion, a fighter is Conan. Read the Conan stories and comics. That's what I want to see a fighter do.

What, not a barbarian?

...

Curiously enough, Conan gets called a lot of things in the titles of his stories but "fighter" isn't one of them!

Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Buccaneer
Conan the Warrior
Conan the Avenger
Conan the Swordsman
Conan the Mercenary
Conan the Defender
Conan the Warlord
Conan the Rogue
Conan the Hunter
blah blah blah

Clearly Conan is a hybrid Barbarian/Rogue/Avenger/Warlord/Hunter ...

 

[Kynn]

They can all use the bow. But the one you want is the Slayer. The one which has Dexterity as its second major stat and does additional damage based on dexterity. Technically an optimised archery slayer does about as much damage as an optimised melee one because they can start with a Dex of 20 and count it twice (or one and a half times in melee with melee training). That's even without the power strike.

While slayers are good at archery, their power strike ability does not work with bows, only melee attacks.

 

[Kynn]

Anyone insisting that tanking makes any sense at all needs to find a military unit in which it is one dedicated guy's job to get shot.

We're not talking about a modern military mindset, we're talking about adventurers in D&D, who since the very earliest days of the game have always, always had warriors/tanks/defenders keeping the bad guys off the squishy spellcasting wizards.

If you don't want to play something like that, you probably don't want to play D&D. A military wargame might be a better idea for you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you don't want to play something like that, you probably don't want to play D&D. A military wargame might be a better idea for you.

Early D&D pretty much was a military war game of sorts. The main difference being the dynamic of player vs environment/ the world instead of player vs player.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay the point of this edition is unity.
So the fighter has to be one that always players to make the character they want while still making it good.

I see the keys to this in theses aspects: Access to Weapon Styles, Access to weapons, Strength of Defenses, Strength of special attacks

They you don't see all of 'em. 'Vancian' castes are coming back, so the new fighter will have to remain good (balanced, viable, whatever you want to call it, alongside something that can throw fireballs and SoD effects on a daily basis). That requires comparable power, to have comparable power unlimitted-use (every round the fighter could try 'Decapitation Strike,' if the enemy fails his save, he loses one or more heads) would be imbalanced, so that comparable power will have to have comparable limitations.

see the problem?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I've read every thread in this post, and I would just like to add to the chorus who can't believe they're going backwards again in design.

IME people only ever took the first 4 levels of fighter (for the 3 feats) before switching to either the Barb, Ranger, or Rogue (or whatever other class they choose). What people view as variety, I viewed as a one trick pony. Literally, you spammed your one trick and hoped it worked while the real heavy hitters (the spellcasters) won the battle.

Also, if someone could give Krynn some XP for me for his post on the Tome of Battle, I would appreciate it. I already gifted him earlier in this thread and thus, am unable to give him more. Like Krynn, I wouldn't dream of playing a melee character in 3.X without the Tome of Battle options.

I really want to buy 5E, simply because I fear the end of DnD, but literally nothing they have previewed or talked about has been an improvement for me.

As someone who's been playing since AD&D, 5E as previewed is regressing the game. Which may be their whole agenda.

 

[Minigiant]

They you don't see all of 'em. 'Vancian' castes are coming back, so the new fighter will have to remain good (balanced, viable, whatever you want to call it, alongside something that can throw fireballs and SoD effects on a daily basis). That requires comparable power, to have comparable power unlimitted-use (every round the fighter could try 'Decapitation Strike,' if the enemy fails his save, he loses one or more heads) would be imbalanced, so that comparable power will have to have comparable limitations.

see the problem?

They just have to get the math, right.

It seem they are having the fighter's X attacks equal to the caster's attack or SoD spell.

The wizard's attack spell could deal average 20 damage with the average target saving for half 50% of the time. But the wizard's weapon damage would would be 6 damage at 40% average accuracy.

Whereas the same level fighter averages 10 damage a hit at 60% accuracy with weapon attacks.

So the fighter's 7 attacks would have the same damage output as the wizard 2 attack spells and 5 weapon attacks.*

SoD would have to be dalance around dealing 100% of the average target's HPs.

*math may not be completely accurate

 

[Tony Vargas]

They just have to get the math, right.

It seem they are having the fighter's X attacks equal to the caster's attack or SoD spell.

The wizard's attack spell could deal average 20 damage with the average target saving for half 50% of the time. But the wizard's weapon damage would would be 6 damage at 40% average accuracy.

Whereas the same level fighter averages 10 damage a hit at 60% accuracy with weapon attacks.

So the fighter's 7 attacks would have the same damage output as the wizard 2 attack spells and 5 weapon attacks.*

So, in your example, they balance at 7 rounds of combat. What if the combat ends on round two (coincidentally, after the wizard has unleashed his two spells)? Not so balanced anymore.

Yes, you can theoretically balance mediocre over a long period with awesome over a shorter period, using a bit of math, hps or some quasi-arbitrary quantification of 'usefulness' or 'fun' of awe-inspiring magic vs bland sword-swining. But it's very theoretical, because (1) you can't gaurantee they'll always get measured over that longer period and (2) because, really, no amount of mediocre ever really adds up to awesome, anyway.