That's essentially the problem
In order to get any fantasy done right you have to do a narrow interpretation of it.
A broad class with a lot of fantasies within it will only do in mediocre job at many of them.
D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
In order to get any fantasy done right you have to do a narrow interpretation of it.
A broad class with a lot of fantasies within it will only do in mediocre job at many of them.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Why did they enforce playstyle? Balance and niche protection perhaps?
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I don’t understand this response
Vaalingrade
Legend
Like most of the big RPGs born of the 90s, 3e was built with an assumption of a playstyle and not enforcement of that playstyle, then marketed to players who absolutely had no intention of following said playstyle.
Like how the proper way to play Vampire is to be sad about your superpowers and mentally tortured by your continued existence, by the fun way to play is 'The Matrix, but you drink blood'.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
That didn’t really help either. Why would someone want to enforce playstyle at all? Why is that a good thing to do?
Vaalingrade
Legend
It's not, but it becomes a problem when you design exclusively to that playstyle and expect people to just do as you say.
Minigiant's not actually right about 4e enforcing a playstyle. It needed player buy-in toward a narrativist understanding of where the rules are coming from, which isn't the same.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I do like the idea of encouraging and supporting playstyle. The lack of doing so is what I see as a failing of WotC 5e. But that doesn't mean you can't use a game "off-label" if you want.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Let's say you have a player who came from AD&D 2e, where enemies tended to target Fighters, not because of any mechanical reason, but simply because that's what Fighters were for. Switching to 3e, the player suddenly finds enemies ignoring the Fighter in favor of higher priority targets like the Cleric or the Wizard.
"Wait, what's going on? The Fighter is supposed to protect the other party members!"
"There's no real reason for them to do that. Easier to take them out rather than deal with the high AC and mediocre damage of a sword-and-board build", someone replies.
"This is wrong, the rules should make enemies engage with the Fighter!"
"Well, you could build a Fighter to do that, kind of, if you used a spiked chain and..."
"No, no, a Fighter shouldn't need a gimmick weapon to do things like that!"
Later in 3.5, a few ways to do just that were added to the game, like the Knight class, or some of the stances from the Tome of Battle, but this still wasn't a stated ability of the Fighter.
Perhaps this hypothetical player will approve of a Fighter who actually can "tank" for weaker party members, and thus embrace 4e, feeling that the game now "feels" more like the D&D they remember.
At least, that's what I assumed at least one 4e dev thought. Certainly, it's likely easier to design monsters and encounters around a party with balanced roles than four or more players doing whatever they want!
Of course, as history shows, far more people wanted Fighters to be armored brutes dishing out massive damage than actually protecting anyone, a trend that persists to this day.*
*Just ask yourself how many people play Cavaliers, who have a heavy defender theme, as opposed to other subclasses, if you take umbrage with this statement.
CreamCloud0
Hero
i do agree with the bulk of this post, and while i feel that last quip definitely wasn't needed to be put in there, as there have already been a few discussions about how defending has other issues in 5e i won't try to rehash that topic
Similar Threads
