People unironically think the concept of a Ranger can be achieved by a binary Survival skill.
So hardly surprising Persuasion on the Fighters list is being seen as a victory.
D&D (2024) 4/26 Playtest: The Fighter
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
People unironically think the concept of a Ranger can be achieved by a binary Survival skill.
So hardly surprising Persuasion on the Fighters list is being seen as a victory.
gorice
Hero
It's a big 'yawn' from me. What really strikes me is how they're doubling down on fighters not getting any interesting choices in combat. Weapon masteries are build options that add a little extra chrome, but very few choices or surprises in a fight.
Speaking of doubling down: the nested attack roll -> saving throw is still with us (e.g. topple). How I hate it! I understand the balance reason, but that's why you make it a manoeuvre...
Speaking of doubling down: the nested attack roll -> saving throw is still with us (e.g. topple). How I hate it! I understand the balance reason, but that's why you make it a manoeuvre...
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I like it (and I enjoy playing Fighters). My one complaint is that I'm not fond of switching out skills on a long rest. Not just because of... learning reasons... but also because I make character sheets and I find it inconvenient to have skills that swap around at any time other than level-up.
Quickleaf
Legend
Overall, the fighter – like all of these playtest packets – feels like I'm being asked to discuss what color code of paint we should use on the walls, when the roof hasn't been built yet.
There are these microscopic changes. Yeah, some of them are good changes. But they're this form of tunnel vision that's completely missing bigger picture issues. How does exploration work in this game? What options are there for negotiation scenes or "skill challenge" scenes more complex than a single skill check? Will we have actually fun chase rules?
With the fighter specifically, I want to see it bursting with story. For instance, the way that Modify Spell and Create Spell do a great job of reinforcing the wizard's story? Please do that for the fighter.
Instead we get this tepid milquetoast redesign of the fighter that's making minor adjustments.
It's like the entire playtest document assumes that we and the designers are on the same page about what ought to be changed and why, so the conversation is going to be this narrow narrow bandwidth.
And that sucks. I don't just want "what we've changed" up front, I want the sales pitch and design thinking "WHY we changed it and why we think it's better." I want to see their big picture. I don't want dickering about yet more combat-centric features taking center stage. Yeah, make those good changes. But get to the big picture.
EDIT: I recall Mike Mearls describing their design process during the D&D Next playtest and how they fell into a sort of tunnel vision when it came to the fighter class needing to support players who prefer simple & players who prefer complex, which led to shunting that to the subclass and leaving the whole class devoid of flavor. These Playtests have me concerned that we're seeing more signs of tunnel vision.
There are these microscopic changes. Yeah, some of them are good changes. But they're this form of tunnel vision that's completely missing bigger picture issues. How does exploration work in this game? What options are there for negotiation scenes or "skill challenge" scenes more complex than a single skill check? Will we have actually fun chase rules?
With the fighter specifically, I want to see it bursting with story. For instance, the way that Modify Spell and Create Spell do a great job of reinforcing the wizard's story? Please do that for the fighter.
Instead we get this tepid milquetoast redesign of the fighter that's making minor adjustments.
It's like the entire playtest document assumes that we and the designers are on the same page about what ought to be changed and why, so the conversation is going to be this narrow narrow bandwidth.
And that sucks. I don't just want "what we've changed" up front, I want the sales pitch and design thinking "WHY we changed it and why we think it's better." I want to see their big picture. I don't want dickering about yet more combat-centric features taking center stage. Yeah, make those good changes. But get to the big picture.
EDIT: I recall Mike Mearls describing their design process during the D&D Next playtest and how they fell into a sort of tunnel vision when it came to the fighter class needing to support players who prefer simple & players who prefer complex, which led to shunting that to the subclass and leaving the whole class devoid of flavor. These Playtests have me concerned that we're seeing more signs of tunnel vision.
Neonchameleon
Legend
I, and I think most warlock fans, would disagree about there being love put into that change.
I really like the new weapon abilities, but I wonder how this will affect the Battlemaster. Some of that subclass's abilities make you spend superiority dice to do things that now you can do every turn for free. The new Battlemaster will have to look a lot different to be viable.
gorice
Hero
Based on what we've seen, I have to assume the answer is 'it doesn't', 'there are none', and 'no'.
So far, they haven't missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Quickleaf
Legend
Yeah, I'm expecting a YouTube video about "99% satisfaction with the weapon mastery changes we made for the fighter."
And it's going to be... well, yeah, technically that's true... but the questions they're not asking (and they are really important questions) could fill a dragon's hoard.
EDIT: Really wish they'd get Teos Abadía @Alphastream to help create/fine tune their playtest surveys!
Last edited:
There is no big picture. They're stuck in a self-referential rut and can't get out. And they don't want to anyway.
ZetaShift
Eternity will pass before I stop playing Monks
Doomerposting hours but to me the UA was undisputedly a buff over the 5e version. They got some nerfs here and there, such as action surge only being for "fighter actions", and indomitable being 1 use per day until level 17 but overall the class is in a better place than before.
Unfortunately that place is still an awful place. They essentially went from the trash heep to your trashcan. Better but is it really all that good? I exaggerate but to me the class is still a boring class and that easily outclassed by their caster counterparts. Weapon Masteries aren't really all that interesting and they gimp the fighter by not allowing them to use multiple at once. It's like having multiple weapons, while cool for flavor and can be circumstantially useful, overall it's nothing worth writing home. They still lack options, and still lack powerful options at that outside of their subclasses. Also why tf is Fighter's final extra attack not at level 17 like all the other cantrips??? Such an odd decision. It's especially saddening when you see all the love all the casters received this UA (especially the wizards holy wow) and it leaves you wondering why couldn't they extend even just 10% of that love towards the Fighter and Barbarian.
Honestly the UA beat my interest for 1DND into the ground so hard that there's no longer a corpse, but a vague bloody outline of where it lied. They can change it yah, but clearly they have a vision and I just don't agree with it. Whatever ig. I'll just be running homebrew versions of the Fighter from now on.
Obligatory monk mention but I also worry for the Monk now if the Fighter and Barbarian got incremental changes.
Unfortunately that place is still an awful place. They essentially went from the trash heep to your trashcan. Better but is it really all that good? I exaggerate but to me the class is still a boring class and that easily outclassed by their caster counterparts. Weapon Masteries aren't really all that interesting and they gimp the fighter by not allowing them to use multiple at once. It's like having multiple weapons, while cool for flavor and can be circumstantially useful, overall it's nothing worth writing home. They still lack options, and still lack powerful options at that outside of their subclasses. Also why tf is Fighter's final extra attack not at level 17 like all the other cantrips??? Such an odd decision. It's especially saddening when you see all the love all the casters received this UA (especially the wizards holy wow) and it leaves you wondering why couldn't they extend even just 10% of that love towards the Fighter and Barbarian.
Honestly the UA beat my interest for 1DND into the ground so hard that there's no longer a corpse, but a vague bloody outline of where it lied. They can change it yah, but clearly they have a vision and I just don't agree with it. Whatever ig. I'll just be running homebrew versions of the Fighter from now on.
Obligatory monk mention but I also worry for the Monk now if the Fighter and Barbarian got incremental changes.
Similar Threads
