I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Neonchameleon]

Mearls has stated that he has gotten the message from a lot of folks that they want the fighter to have more options. I respect that opinion and reflection, but I disagree.

Almost every table I have run has a casual or new player. They want action! They want to be involved in the game quickly. I think a simple fighter, as presented in the playtest, fits the bill quite nicely for these folks. Sorcerer kind of did these same folks back in the 3e days.

One of the possible flaws of an open playtest like this is it necessarily caters to those who are most heavily invested in the rules. Folks who really love digging into the rules and making great characters. It does not cater to those who just want to play right now without deciding what is the best option [spell, maneuver, skill, trick, etc.] for their character.

I don't think this is an either/or situation: Surely there is room in the game for a simple fighter class and a more complicated melee class.

I hope the new rules has a class for these folks. They're not going to complain if it doesn't. They just won't play it.

I have no problem with the idea of a simple class - in fact I think the single biggest failing of 4e pre-essentials was that it didn't have one. However we had eight years and two editions (3.0 and 3.5) of Fighters Don't Get Good Stuff - this is not acceptable to me. The fighter is probably the single biggest archetype in fantasy fiction and I am not prepared to accept that it should be the weakest as well.

Especially not when the playtest fighter mechanically sucks - it does half of one point more damage per attack than the warpriest once you pair up the weapons and strength. The rest is all illusion.

I've no objection to there being a simple fighter. But I want two conditions to hold.

1. The fighter should be the best there is at what he does
2. There should be simple non-fighters so it's not just "fighters are for idiots".

1 is only marginally true - once you cut through the mechanical sleight of hand the warpriest does almost exactly as much damage, all else being equal. (+4 to damage vs Crusader's Strike, +1 to hit vs +1 AC, and offensive theme vs defensive theme). Not acceptable.


2 is doable. We have a simple spellcaster in 4e - the Elementalist Sorceror who gets a grand total of two attack spells (elemental lance and elemental blast of their chosen element) and occasionally intensifies them. I want to give newbies elementalists at least as much as I want to give them fighters. Give me a spellcaster for starting players.

 

[ren1999]

You can have a simple fighter if you want to just use the same feat over and over again. There is nothing wrong with that.

But for those of us who want a more complex fighter, we could have up to 10 to 20 feats and more and more standard actions per turn.

 

[Dragoslav]

Mearls said in the recent Reddit Q&A that they want a simple fighter to be an option, while those who desire it can make a more complex fighter -- the idea behind the Reaver feat is that, for example, a new player can feel like he's still contributing and not get frustrated and give up if he ends up missing a lot, because he's still contributing to the damage output.

That gave me a lot of reassurance, at least, although I'm still skeptical to a certain degree.

 

[soulcatcher78]

The gateway to this hobby is to make characters accessible to new players. The bare bones character (no matter what class) should be simple enough for a novice to read and play without having to delve to deeply into a PHB. Layers of complexity can be added later if needed but all classes should start out simple.

Some players (maybe even a majority?) want as many options as possible to refind their character concept and there's definitely a place for that. Some would argue that the business plan for WotC is built around that assumption. There will, however, always be the long term player who doesn't want to juggle 3 pages worth of options during combat so a simple character works for them as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

the idea behind the Reaver feat is that, for example, a new player can feel like he's still contributing and not get frustrated and give up if he ends up missing a lot...

We certainly wouldn't want that!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've no objection to there being a simple fighter. But I want two conditions to hold.

1. The fighter should be the best there is at what he does
2. There should be simple non-fighters so it's not just "fighters are for idiots".

Fair to say. We definitely need to see more mechanical power for the fighter. As far as other simple classes, the 3.5 warlock was a huge success in that regard. I think they'd be fools not to bring it back, as well as a divine version.

 

[steeldragons]

We certainly wouldn't want that!

Lol! I know, right?

That read to me (the "reason" for the Reaver) as such a buncha coddling rot!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I want both simple and complex options for most classes.

Simple is nice to introduce a new player, to run a quick pick up game or one-shot, or when your character dies and you want to start with a new one immediately, rather than spend three hours mulling choices across multiple sourcebooks.

Complex is nice when you have the time to mull your choices and season to taste.

What must occur though is to make both the simple and complex versions of characters equally viable side-by-side in the same adventuring party.

 

[pogre]

Why not a simple wizard? Or a simple cleric?

I don't understand why the fighter, and the fighter alone, has to bear the stigma of the "class for starting players".

<snip>

I used the fighter because that was the simplest one in the playtest and the one folks are complaining the most about. D&D, as many have pointed out, has a history of making fighter the simple class - although in 3 ed. it was perhaps the sorcerer or warlock.

Make it simple. Make it hit harder than anyone else. Give it the best armor.

I personally would prefer a second melee class with lots of options instead of adding them to the fighter - I think adding too many options to fighter could muddy the waters a bit. However, I readily admit giving more possible options to the fighter is a valid approach.

I would love to see a simple spell caster as well.

 

[Agamon]

The playtest casters are pretty simple already, aren't they? Not as simple as the fighter, but pretty basic. I think a core similar to AD&D like we currently have is simple enough.

I like that there's a dichotomy in class types. Spell-casters, for those that like their choices spelled out for them ahead of time, with little leeway in creativity beyond the spell's description, and non-casters, who are better on the creative end with their actions.