A Warrior, a Weaponmaster and a Swordsage walk into a tavern ...

[FireLance]

I have deliberately avoided the word "Fighter" because it's way too loaded.

Let's say you are shown three possible classes which could be included in 5e:

1. The Warrior: A very basic fighter along the lines of the class prior to 3e. He has very few class abilities apart from increasing his attack bonus, his damage and his number of attacks.

2. The Weaponmaster: A maneuver-based fighter along the lines of the 4e class. Maneuvers are similar to spells in that they are more powerful abilities which can only be used a limited number of times between rests, but they are decidedly non-magical in description and in nature: they might allow the character to make impressive leaps, but not to fly. They might allow a character to push an opponent, but not to teleport him. They might grant a character temporary hit points, but they cannot heal him.

3. The Swordsage: A magical fighter along the lines of the 3e class from the Book of Nine Swords. He uses maneuvers like the Weaponmaster, but his maneuvers are explicitly magical in nature. He can use them to fly, heal, teleport, etc.

Which would you like (or could live with) and which are dealbreakers?

 

[slobo777]

I'm fine with all 3, they all appear in fantasy stories I like, and I think they are compatible in the same tavern/game world without issue.

Of course if these are separate classes in the core rules, then none of them would be dealbreakers to D&D Next, just for a game starting for specific players/DMs when a group got together to play . . .

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd like the Figher class to contain 1 and 2, and maybe have 3 be a theme or come out as a class in a later book (it doesn't feel like a core class to me, but then again neither do Druid and Paladin).

 

[Blackbrrd]

I hate these "x is a dealbreaker for me" posts, and a poll on the same subject isn't anymore useful. I can't see anybody not buying 5e (the deal I assume) based on the inclusion or exclusion on any of the classes mentioned above.

 

[Yora]

I won't have paladins in my campaigns, but that doesn't mean I won't play 5th Edition just because paladins exist as an option.

I don't understand the question.

 

[Serendipity]

I'm only ever going to play the warrior but the other two have the right to exist I guess.

 

[ComradeGnull]

None of them are "deal breakers" for me (whatever that might mean) as long as they fit with the context of the game world they were set in. Having swordsages turn up without notice in a setting where they never existed before would be irksome, but its happened before and it will happen again.

The other issue is parity between the three classes. If I want to play a guy who relies on his skill with weapons to get things done, I don't won't to be compelled to play one class or the other in order to be effective in combat. If the Swordsage constantly outdamages the Warrior and has more non-combat utility as well, that would begin to creep into territory where I would regret the addition of that class.

 

[Underman]

It depends: does the "Weaponmaster" use something like combat superiority or stamina points or something other than 4E martial dailies?

(Preferably, the "Swordsage" could have something like a mana or psionics pool too)

 

[Minigiant]

None of them is a dealbreaker for me.

I just probably wont play the Warrior in any D&D setting unless I knew the DM for a long time where I know I am getting a lot of leeway for improvisation.

 

[Kraydak]

Voted Weaponmaster as the only dealbreaker.... but that is only the case if his maneuvers are encounter/daily abilities, instead of Bo9S maneuvers with a decent recovery mechanic.

I *like* the Bo9S Warblade as a tactician who has to pause to reevaluate the situation periodically (quick and easy refresh mechanism to takes a brief pause every once in a while). I *like* the Crusader as an opportunist who takes advantage of the changing situation (as tracked by the random maneuver availability).