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

[Remathilis]

Combine 1 and 2 into a class and call it "Fighter" that gives the player the option of either playstyle. Make Swordsage a unique class, probably in some supplement where it can get proper treatment (such as all its sword-magic maneuvers).

Done. That was easy.

EDIT: As for Poll, Lemon Swordy-Dudes.

 

[Obryn]

If Next is going to be successful at its design goals, all three should be possible within the rules framework.

Not all three need to be available by the first release, but the ruleset needs to be robust enough to allow for all three. Preferably, all at the same table and contributing in unique ways.

That's my own "dealbreaker". I'm not petty enough to give up on the game as a whole just because something I don't personally care for is an option for someone else.

-O

 

[slobo777]

What I don't like the idea of, is a class that gains those abilities explicitly through training long and hard with the sword. If it's possible in the world, to train with the blade so long and hard that you can make it burst into flames or balance on bamboo branches, what does it say about the swordsman who can't do those things? It says he didn't train long and hard enough.

I didn't even spot that in the OP . . .

Why? Because the first thing I do when looking at a class is throw out all the fluff and think of what *my* background for the character would be.

In the swordsage example, all I need say (as DM or player when Swordsage and Warrior are sat at the same table) - the training was different - while the warrior is a battle veteran and won tournament after tournament, the swordsage practiced deep meditation and ritualistic katas . . .

Which I guess gets to a "dealbreaker"* for me - if any of these classes has fluff and mechanics tied up so much that I have to use the book fluff for the class my character belongs to, then unless they've hit my exact desires for the character directly, I'll enjoy the game less.


* Not really a dealbreaker, but it would be annoying

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Fighter + Theme X can give you any of the above.

If one class is a dealbreaker for me then I obviously have my expectations set too high.

 

[howandwhy99]

All three are dealbreakers. Or, at least, I really wouldn't care to have any of the three in D&D. I'd rather a fighter class was proficient in all manner of combat & was only further specialized according to player created ideas. These could be single-handed combat related or anything else. Followers. Leadership ability. Group combat tactics. Intelligence and counterintelligence. Fortification building and management. Warmachine use and construction. Raising armies. Looting and pillaging. And on and on.

Not every fighter has to be an eastern martial artist of the heron school with a few dozen named maneuvers like "moonlight falls through barren tree". And the alternative is not some anemic high hit, high damage boringnes. Both come from hack & slash play and attempts to sell game mechanics like cards for CCGs. Both could be dropped and the game could still be played enjoyably.

 

[Salamandyr]

I didn't even spot that in the OP . . .

Why? Because the first thing I do when looking at a class is throw out all the fluff and think of what *my* background for the character would be.

In the swordsage example, all I need say (as DM or player when Swordsage and Warrior are sat at the same table) - the training was different - while the warrior is a battle veteran and won tournament after tournament, the swordsage practiced deep meditation and ritualistic katas . . .

Which I guess gets to a "dealbreaker"* for me - if any of these classes has fluff and mechanics tied up so much that I have to use the book fluff for the class my character belongs to, then unless they've hit my exact desires for the character directly, I'll enjoy the game less.


* Not really a dealbreaker, but it would be annoying

To the first question...I was responding not just to the OP, but to the design space the swordsage occupies.

As to your second point, therein we would have a problem, because implicit in your background is a value statement about the training of the other characters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It seems to me the warrior and the weaponmaster can exist side by side with each other as long as both can contribute. One's just a streamlined version of the other. That sounds like exactly that 5e is trying to do.

Swordsage no. Swordmage sure, why not?

That's a good point. The Swordsage is magic. At least Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.

The Bo9S fighter isn't the Swordsage. It's the Warblade. A very different class (mostly - Stone dragon is magical).

 

[outsider]

Weaponmaster all the way. If I can't play a weaponmaster style character right out of the PHB, I probably won't be playing 5e. I don't particularly care if the warrior and swordsage exist, but they can't be in the PHB unless the weaponmaster is too. The influence the PHB has over the entire edition can't be overstated. If the PHB has the warrior but the weaponmaster appears in a splat, I have to worry about whether my DM(s) will let me play it(and other classes like it), and it won't receive nearly as much support.

How martial characters are treated in the PHB will affect the entire edition. I remember how many groups banned Bo9S in 3.5 due to perceived power creep and flavor issues. I don't want a repeat of that. 5e needs to get people used to the idea of martial characters having unique abilities beyond dealing damage right from the core book, and those abilities need to be non magical.

 

[Li Shenron]

As classes, I dislike all of them...

Simple warrior, should be an option within the Fighter class at least at low levels, but if this one was a class of its own then it would soon become obsolete and left behind. Also I think it's important that each existing class provides a range of complexity so that people can choose a class based on story or concept preferences and only then make their character simple or complex or anything in between depending on their ability to play such character. Thus purposefully making a class that's always low-complexity is a huge mistake.

"Weaponmaster" first of all sounds like a wrong name for the example given, at least when I hear this name I always think of someone who knows many weapons and is good at getting out from each weapon its best feature. It's got nothing to do with manouvers... that is someone I would call by a different name, although I'm not sure which. Anyway, I just hate the idea of manouvers with a time limit unless they are (a) magical, which is clearly not the wanted case in this example, (b) luck-based in a way that's not explainable but it just is, and this is IMHO totally far from the idea of a "master" who should have nothing to do with luck, and (c) fatigue-based, and that's the best option and easiest way for the game to make me accept something like that, except that it depends on the manouver if this is a believable explanation or not.

A magic-powered fighter is OK for me, but I do not see this at all a separate class. It should be an option of the Fighter class, for example with feats or perhaps something limited to high levels (like a prestige class). The problem with a magic fighter is that in some campaign settings it is not appropriate, in other settings it's appropriate only at high or very high levels, and in other settings (superheroes) it's appropriate even at 1st level. Thus the problem with making this a class of its own: that in a lot of settings you'll have to ban it outright, and that's not IMHO a good start for a core class.