D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
The fact is that the "simple Fighter" isn't for new players. New players rarely even want to play fighters these days.
No kidding. Fighter is just not evocative enough of a concept. Just the name “fighter” makes it sound like a boring, one-note class. I’ve had players I know would enjoy playing fighters if they tried it, but do just about anything else because they assume it’s not going to be interesting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

grimslade

Krampus ate my d20s
I do believe there is a great design space for a simplified caster like the warlock. This is the niche the sorcerer should have had, but that ship has sailed. Maybe psionics could fill this gap or a set of primal casters like a shaman. Limited spells with modifiable effects and additional powers as you level.
The lack of desire to play the healer is always going to be a fight. It is by nature a support activity like buffing. You feel like a sidekick. 4E addressed this but it has huge ramifications for the action economy.
 

No kidding. Fighter is just not evocative enough of a concept. Just the name “fighter” makes it sound like a boring, one-note class. I’ve had players I know would enjoy playing fighters if they tried it, but do just about anything else because they assume it’s not going to be interesting.
Yeah I feel like older Millennials and maybe a little younger were so exposed to images of/writing about cool fantasy warriors (who typically have magical powers, nor were outright berserkers) that this sort of overcame the "sounds dull" factor. But people much younger than say 35 likely grew up playing videogames and watching TV where warriors tended to have at least flashy martial-arts-style powers, which, to be fair, in 4E, Fighters did have, but 5E's whole unacknowledged "apology edition" deal meant they took that and anything much like that away.

And what's particularly damning is fantasy warriors today who aren't flashy martial arts types or using actual magic as well, tend to be very skilled individuals, very knowledgeable/talented. But D&D Fighters aren't even that. They're arguably the very worst, least-skilled class out of combat, which doesn't fit at all.
 

The lack of desire to play the healer is always going to be a fight. It is by nature a support activity like buffing. You feel like a sidekick. 4E addressed this but it has huge ramifications for the action economy.
4E and loads of multiplayer videogames show it's totally fixable.

A lot of people want to play a character which is somewhat support-oriented. They just don't want to be a healbot/buffbot, i.e. doing something so simple it doesn't actually need a player, it's just sort of reactive activity. 5E isn't too bad on this, and requires healers less than any edition but 4E (arguably possibly less than 5E required a Leader-role PC, even). The main issue is just that 5E has a very limited and dull menu of ways to help other PCs much of which is just simple numerical buffs.
 


Why is fighter so popular amongst folks still after all this?
the same reason why in 4e I saw a HUGE amount of fighters and warlords... people love the concept. Some are just willing to take less options and power in exchange for higher damage... and some of us want those concepts to be able to have the options and power, even if it means "only" doing caster damage.
 

I do believe there is a great design space for a simplified caster like the warlock. This is the niche the sorcerer should have had, but that ship has sailed.
the new caster monster design is a GREAT place to look for how WotC could do a simple caster...
a list of 10-15 spell like abilities that roughly look like big boom spells spread out over levels, each useable 1/sr and/or some kind of recharge mechanic... but you have to trade them out so you can't have 1 of each, you only get 1 or 2 total... with a scaleing at will attack
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yeah I feel like older Millennials and maybe a little younger were so exposed to images of/writing about cool fantasy warriors (who typically have magical powers, nor were outright berserkers) that this sort of overcame the "sounds dull" factor. But people much younger than say 35 likely grew up playing videogames and watching TV where warriors tended to have at least flashy martial-arts-style powers, which, to be fair, in 4E, Fighters did have, but 5E's whole unacknowledged "apology edition" deal meant they took that and anything much like that away.
Amusingly, the particular player I’m thinking of is a literal boomer (he’s my dad, in fact). But he never played D&D before 5e. His first character was a blade pact warlock, because he liked the idea of using a weapon but still casting some spells once in a while. Almost never remembered his spells and ended up feeling really mediocre. But another player in that campaign had a Paladin, and he was impressed with their survivability and damage output. So next campaign he made a paladin. Almost never remembered his spells or his smites, and couldn’t wrap his head around how Lay on Hands worked; though he really liked Extra Attack when he reached 5th level. Another player in that campaign had a monk, and he was really impressed with her ability to make a whole bunch of attacks, so next campaign he made a monk. Never remembered to use his Ki points, but he did really like the bonus action unarmed strike. I keep telling him, “you like having a lot of HP and dealing a lot of damage, and you really like making lots of attacks. You should really try a fighter, I think you would like it a lot.” And he’s always like “yeah, maybe…” but I can tell he’s not convinced, and then he ends up making something else he thought another player made look cool.
 

Retreater

Legend
The issue is that there's a mismatch between "the players who want/need that style of play" and "the players who want to play Fighters". Your suggestions of "play a different class" or much worse "go play a different game!!!" (almost always a terrible suggestion, especially when talking about something like class choice) are unhelpful and lack insight into why this is so often discussed.
The point is that there are many, many options.
Don't like a basic fighter? Sweet. Try someone who grapples, uses "exotic" weapons (nets, polearms, etc.).
Don't want to do that? Cool. Try a subclass like Eldritch Knight or Battle Master.
Don't like any of those options? Well, that's okay. Build your own flavor by multiclassing.
Want a few more options? Maybe check with your DM about adding some of the tactical options from the DMG (or various 3rd party sources). Or maybe some flavorful magic items would be a good way to liven things up.
Maybe you'd rather play a monk, ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc.?
Oh, none of those ideas will work for you? Maybe D&D 5e isn't the game for you. Try looking at 3.x/4e/PF1/PF2 or something else to see if it's something you like.
 

An answer to this...
Move those vital "exploration" spells to rituals, and allow any character to cast them out of combat (provided they have a feat to allow ritual casting).
Move the responsibility of healing from spellcasters and allow characters to "spend" their own healing resource.
So basically, what 4e did.
I mean..there is a whole 'medicine' skill sitting on every 5e character sheet vying with 'performance' and 'animal handling' for most useless skill you can pick..

Perhaps this skill could do what it sounds like it would do?
 

Remove ads

Top