D&D 5E Fighter = Barbarian = Monk = Paladin = Rogue?

[Quartz]

I've not really kept tabs on D&D Next, but I recently read an article by one of the designers which equated Fighters with Barbarians and Monks. Fighters have Expertise, Barbarians Rage, and Monks Ki. Same function, different SFX. It occurs to me that that might be extended to Paladins and Rogues: Paladins have Divine Power, and Rogues have Tactics. What do you think?

 

[TwoSix]

I've not really kept tabs on D&D Next, but I recently read an article by one of the designers which equated Fighters with Barbarians and Monks. Fighters have Expertise, Barbarians Rage, and Monks Ki. Same function, different SFX. It occurs to me that that might be extended to Paladins and Rogues: Paladins have Divine Power, and Rogues have Tactics. What do you think?

Agreed, yes.

 

[GX.Sigma]

He's talking about classes that are basically like the fighter, but different. In my opinion, the Rogue is DEFINITELY NOT one of those classes.

The Rogue should not have the same base fighting ability as the Paladin or the Ranger. That goes against my idea of a Rogue (not to mention the published design goals): the Rogue shouldn't be the combat guy.

...equated Fighters with Barbarians and Monks. Fighters have Expertise, Barbarians Rage, and Monks Ki. Same function, different SFX.

I don't think that was the point of the article. He's not saying they're functionally the same--quite the opposite, in fact! The point is that they all share the base fighting progression, but they get their own unique mechanics on top.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I hope they aren't all precisely identical in their advancement. We've got weapon attack modifier and martial damage dice and maybe martial damage bonus to play with in differentiating classes that use these features. Fighters feel like they should be that little bit more accurate than other fighting classes, whereas Barbarians ought to be doing that little bit more damage, and monks have their unique pseudo-magical maneuvers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And the Paladin isn't exactly on the the level of the Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk either... because I suspect they will get some manner of spellcasting as well as fighting ability.

Thus, their level of martial skill will be less than the F / B / M because the spells will bring them back up into total balance.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Thus, their level of martial skill will be less than the F / B / M because the spells will bring them back up into total balance.

The idea is that they all have the same base fighting ability, with unique mechanics on top of that. So Paladins and Fighters will have the same BAB and damage, but Paladins get divine powers as a bonus, and Fighters get maneuvers as a bonus. So, the Fighter's suite of maneuvers will have to be balanced with the Paladin's suite of divine powers (and the Monk's ki techniques and the Barbarian's rage abilities).

This is the article we're talking about, by the way. I hadn't noticed before that it says they're representing the Fighter's expertise as a pool of dice, and the Fighter has to take a break to regain them. Expertise dice as a fighter-only encounter resource?

 

[Bluenose]

This is the article we're talking about, by the way. I hadn't noticed before that it says they're representing the Fighter's expertise as a pool of dice, and the Fighter has to take a break to regain them. Expertise dice as a fighter-only encounter resource?

I think what he means is spending an action not acting rather than an Encounter resource.

Fascinating that the Barbarian gets enough out of Rage to be a full separate class but the Warlord hasn't got enough from it's abilities to be more than a Fighter style (plus something else for the Bard to do).

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think what he means is spending an action not acting rather than an Encounter resource.

Presumably you would start each fight at full, and you can spend an action to recharge some small amount.

Fascinating that the Barbarian gets enough out of Rage to be a full separate class but the Warlord hasn't got enough from it's abilities to be more than a Fighter style (plus something else for the Bard to do).

If I interpret correctly, the point there was that the stuff they gave the Warlord class was basically just combat maneuvers... so at that point, it didn't need to be mechanically separate from the fighter.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've not really kept tabs on D&D Next, but I recently read an article by one of the designers which equated Fighters with Barbarians and Monks. Fighters have Expertise, Barbarians Rage, and Monks Ki. Same function, different SFX. It occurs to me that that might be extended to Paladins and Rogues: Paladins have Divine Power, and Rogues have Tactics. What do you think?

If it means that the only difference between playing a Ftr, Brb or Monk is SFX, I hate it.

But I don't think this is what they mean. They only mean that Ftr, Brb and Monks are going to be designed with approximately the same efficiency and role in combat, because in a way all of them are primarily fighting character concepts, with different mechanics and different "source" of their effectiveness.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think all those classes. Except the rogue, could easily be grouped together. In 2E paladin and ranger fighter subclasses. That makes sense to me and I could easily add monk and barnarin into that group. But rogue strikes me as a very different concept (tend to agree with the 2E gouping of rogues and bards as well).