Kill the fighter

[Savage Wombat]

Because then the fighter would basically be saying "you can take any class feature/feat/benefit". If we combine the fighter-like classes into fighter, then the "fighter" just becomes the build that picks and chooses it's favored pieces, while the barbarian, warlord, ect... choose a specific series of features.

And, honestly, would that be so bad? If the barbarian were a fighter who took the "barbarian" package of feats?

 

[Sunseeker]

And, honestly, would that be so bad? If the barbarian were a fighter who took the "barbarian" package of feats?

No...that's what I've been advocating. The Barbarian doesn't need it's own class setup, since almost everything it is is just "angry fighter". The barbarian could then become a less ragey and more tactical fighter without the need to multiclass.

 

[cavalier973]

The problem is that even if the fighter is all of these he's still the most useless class in the game because he can't DO anything besides hit stuff with a hunk of metal. He can't move obstacles out of the way, he can't talk his way around a fancy dress party, he can't stop a demon from carrying a princess back through a hellish portal.

Giving the fighter more plus signs isn't the answer. He needs effect buttons, he needs something on his character sheet that allows him to tell the DM "now this happens" instead of begging for the DM to come up with rules for him to swing from chandeliers on the spot.

I beg to differ. The Essentials' Slayer is awesomeness personified. A slayer doesn't have to be built to be a wielder of two-handed weapons. Several of the stances that a slayer uses don't specify whether an attack must be melee or ranged. So "poised assault" would give a +1 bonus to an attack using a longbow. Choose the "bow expertise" feat and add another +1. The "mobile blade" stance would allow our archer to move up to his DEX modifier each time he hits an enemy. That's a lot of motion (move-attack[hit]-move again; next turn: move-attack[hit]-move again). Since the slayer adds his DEX modifier to damage, then the archer-slayer can pump up his DEX to 20 and thereby cause massive amounts of damage with his bow-and-arrow (d10+10) at level 1.
Now, it's true that there are only two weapon specializations: the Greataxe and the Greatsword, and the slayer misses out by focusing on weapons other than those two. It's a shame they didn't expand the slayer's weapon choices (maybe they did; I'm not a subscriber to DDI).
But the slayer, if he is trained in healing, can make a dying companion automatically heal and stand up. He has some "controller" abilities, forciing enemies to shift around. He can shake off certain effects, like being slowed or immobilized. And he has more options to increase his mobility during battle. He does more than just hit things with a sword. The slayer is very much in the mold of the classic hero-warrior.

The knight is the more pure "defender". With his defensive aura and features that give him benefits when using a shield. Like the slayer, the knight has options that allow him to heal his allies or move his enemies around. The choices of which skills to train become important to both slayer and knight, because certain powers require training in particular skills. I point this out because of the comment that fighters need other skills to deal with out-of-combat situations. Well, a knight with training in Diplomacy not only has the ability to persuade the duke to give his party aid, he also has the ability to reposition his allies in combat, based on his Diplomatic training (if he chooses the appropriate power).

The powers these classes have do not, in my opinion, feel like "anime magic". There are no "daily powers", though there are encounter powers. Both fighters make basic weapon attacks, and use their powers to augment their attacks.

 

[Minigiant]

Because then the fighter would basically be saying "you can take any class feature/feat/benefit". If we combine the fighter-like classes into fighter, then the "fighter" just becomes the build that picks and chooses it's favored pieces, while the barbarian, warlord, ect... choose a specific series of features.

That'll make multiclassing different.

Quite frankly, the mechanics required sounds good but easy to screw up and anger many fans.

 

[Hussar]

In general, the most popular of anything seems to be the most generic and bland option. Coke/Pepsi for soda, vanilla for ice cream / pudding, regular hershey bar is the most popular chocolate bar, plain potato chips...

Fighter is the vanilla of D&D. It's not very good, but it's so lacking in style and flavor as to be immune to outright hatred (except from anti-establishment types) and is thus the most popular thing to the masses.

I think this is pretty spot on right here. Fighters, as a class, have virtually no inherent flavor beyond, "I'm a non-magic guy that hits stuff". You can apply that class to a bajillion different characters from genre fiction and it will kinda-sorta fit.

One thing that 2e did well was the concept of kits. I'd love to see a lot of the classes bloat removed and stuffed into kits and replacement levels. You want a Barbarian/Fighter? No problem, here's the starting kit for barbarian with a few goodies and penalties - nothing too front end loaded. At levels X, Y and X, instead of getting whatever a fighter gets, you get these effects...

Same goes for any non-inherently magical guy that beats on stuff. Here is the "knight" package, over here is the "swashbuckler" package and on that shelf up there is the "soldier" package.

I have no problem doing the same thing to all the base classes to be honest. Pare back to maybe half a dozen fairly generic classes and then specialize them as needed.

 

[groklynn]

Well I see some ways to solve fighters problem:
1) leave the old names for classes itself and ->

2) use new names from roles (defender, controller etc.) to point out an archetype in D&D

and after these two simple steps ->

3) make a brand new fighter paradigm - multiattacking/ tactical/ dirtyfighting/ grappling/ choking/ brutal mercenary with the ultimate combat training in different weapons plus some improvisation powers, stances, combos on criticals (like cleave but with various effects for enemies; you have prone/dazzled/blinded/slowed/stunned etc. so why not?) and here's your fighter. not that old od&d "meh... fighter", but a powerful one.
also, add special feats/powers for weapon-and-shield combat. use it with complete blocking of melee and magic attacks, additional blows with a shield and different benefits from attached ranged weapons to the shield's surface (hand crossbow attack with a poisonous dart as a free action once per encounter, or an attack of opportunity with a little dagger right after the blocking with a shield which automatically deal some critical on hit...). And you also could use different disarm-and-attack-with-enemy's-weapon-kinda-things cause a good fighter must know how to find a weapon even in a desert full of nothing. Fighter is a good reason to have a bloody fight and to use some really impressive fighting skills to destroy foes with some feints and power slams.

 

[Sunseeker]

That'll make multiclassing different.

Good. In large part multiclassing exists for three reasons.
1: to make up for the failings in design of a class. This reason shouldn't exist, at all, ever.
2: Power-gaming; people will multiclass for this reason no matter what, and that's fine.
3: Theme. People multiclass to get a specific idea of how they want their character to be, even if it's a bad combo.

Combining niche classes into a broader class that can be made niche through specific feature and feat choices will fix or eliminate the first one.

Quite frankly, the mechanics required sounds good but easy to screw up and anger many fans.

Sure, but they could screw up attempting to make 10 classes that are all bits and pieces of the fighter.

 

[Hussar]

Shidaku - I'm going to disagree here. There are a number of multiclass options that a base class just doesn't do. The stereotypical Fighter/Wizard is a perfect example. You can't make either class broad enough to encompass that archetype. The four basic classes, and I hate to bring roles into things, but, I don't specifically mean 4e's definition of roles here, all have different roles in the game and always have.

Multiclassing is a good way to hybridize those roles and create new options.

 

[Leatherhead]

Multiclassing is a good way to hybridize those roles and create new options.

I have never seen multiclassing as a good way to hybridize things.

In 2nd edition you couldn't use half of your powers until well after the fact.
In 3rd edition the powers didn't scale properly
In 4th edition you got only the smallest smattering of your second class, unless you went feat heavy, then you missed out other ways.

And never worked right out of the gate from level one.

5e might be able to fix multiclassing power problems, but the very nature of multiclassing makes it more or less doomed to fail for characters who are just starting out.

 

[Minigiant]

Good. In large part multiclassing exists for three reasons.
1: to make up for the failings in design of a class. This reason shouldn't exist, at all, ever.
2: Power-gaming; people will multiclass for this reason no matter what, and that's fine.
3: Theme. People multiclass to get a specific idea of how they want their character to be, even if it's a bad combo.

Combining niche classes into a broader class that can be made niche through specific feature and feat choices will fix or eliminate the first one.


Sure, but they could screw up attempting to make 10 classes that are all bits and pieces of the fighter.

The problem is that with only 4 base classes and just kits, it would be too easy to mess up archtypes and break balance.

Lets the Ranger.
What if someone wanted to make a "3E style" ranger: a skilled light armored warrior with access to a few spells and some animal related ability.

The designers will have to design a way to:

1. Change the Fighter skill set from one of a disciplined warrior to to a naturalistic border guard
2. Find a way to give the fighter spells
3. Grant a method for the fighter to wear light armor effectively in heavy combat
4. Find a way to give the fighter nature/animal abilities
5. Balance these features along with the other "fighter archetypes" and other class features.

A lot of work for a core base class. It would probably have to involve a lot of substitutions/replacements/kits, forcing the use of feats, and probably multiclassing into a cleric or druid.

Much easier to actually make a separate ranger class. And a separate barbarian and warlord class. And a separate fighter class and give this class more clarity and it own niche(s).

Now it woouldn't be impossible to give a fighter a "woodsman", "berserker", and "commander" build but the varrior class might have too much baggage at this point to do them justice without making it overly complicated.