D&D 5E And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

[Underman]

I don't think they have managed to find the answer to their initial question of "What makes the fighter unique compared to other classes?"

For me, it reinforces that fighters are 'super-probable' warriors who defy the odds (ie., John McClane) just because -- at least at a plot/metagame level. In effect, combat superiority is an abstraction that can be flavored just like hit points within the story. I think there's an early sense of that from the posts so far. For one person, Combat Superiority reflects weapon mastery. For another, it reflects innate toughness. It could also reflect supernatural boons or something else. And I think that's the schtick.

More seriously they only have to divide those maneuvers into Gritty (level 1+: Trip, extra damage), Heroic (level 6+: attack everyone around you, grapple ogres), Bigger than life (level 11+: attack everyone in a room, rip someone's heart out and show it to him, shoot a handful of arrows at once), Mythic (level 16+: punch giants 30 feet away, jump castle walls, use a giant rock as an improvised weapon) and Anime Episode on Acid (level 18+: cleave mountains, use a gargantuan dragon as an improvised weapon) and give the DM authority on what maneuvers can the player choose from.

The danger of course is that the more specific the Combat Superiority Options (ie., less like hit points and more like discrete powers), the more you get into the arguments about why fighters have Vancian-like powers. Whereas a Combat Superiority Option like, say, 2 weapon fightinng, specifies a general fighting style and not a discrete maneuver or tactical result.

 

[Leatherhead]

Modifying rolls is nifty, but that sounds more like a Warlord thing, Warlords are still in 5e right?

However, all this talk of swashbucklers and shield specialists makes me worry that Fighters are going to be locked down into doing one thing and only one thing at character creation, again, rather than having a plethora of dynamic tactical decisions to make in combat. So long as the swashbuckler can pick up a shield and do something cool, and "the shield specialist" can drop the shield to grab a weapon with two hands if need be, then it would be cool.

In short, I want a Fighter to pick up any weapon, at any time, and wreck house with it in a way that is appropriate to that weapon. And not just melee weapons either. "Land-locking" a class into melee combat is a bad idea in games where you fight flying dragons, especially for the class that is supposed to be the best at combat in general.

 

[Blackwarder]

Modifying rolls is nifty, but that sounds more like a Warlord thing, Warlords are still in 5e right?

However, all this talk of swashbucklers and shield specialists makes me worry that Fighters are going to be locked down into doing one thing and only one thing at character creation, again, rather than having a plethora of dynamic tactical decisions to make in combat. So long as the swashbuckler can pick up a shield and do something cool, and "the shield specialist" can drop the shield to grab a weapon with two hands if need be, then it would be cool.

In short, I want a Fighter to pick up any weapon, at any time, and wreck house with it in a way that is appropriate to that weapon. And not just melee weapons either. "Land-locking" a class into melee combat is a bad idea in games where you fight flying dragons, especially for the class that is supposed to be the best at combat in general.

I would like it if all fighters will get the extra damage but throught their CS will be able to use the dices for something else. So one fighter might take a shield based CS but he could still pick up a two handed sword and use his CS dice to do extra damage with it.

Warder

 

[Someone]

The danger of course is that the more specific the Combat Superiority Options (ie., less like hit points and more like discreet powers), the more you get into the arguments about why fighters have Vancian-like powers. Whereas a Combat Superiority Option like, say, 2 weapon fightinng, reflects a general fighting style and not a discreet fighting maneuver/tactic.

Fighters having discrete abilities have never supposed a problem for most people; everyone was ok with barbarian rage or the Cleave feat, unless the mechanics were too similar to fire and forget spells. In this case, all combat superiority share a common resource, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Also I think it's easier to model passive abilities from active (spend a die for extra damage, spend a dice to make an attack with your secondary weapon) than the opposite.

 

[Yora]

Modifying rolls is nifty, but that sounds more like a Warlord thing, Warlords are still in 5e right?

As others said before, they are basically the same concept and should be a single class.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Modifying rolls is nifty, but that sounds more like a Warlord thing, Warlords are still in 5e right?

However, all this talk of swashbucklers and shield specialists makes me worry that Fighters are going to be locked down into doing one thing and only one thing at character creation, again, rather than having a plethora of dynamic tactical decisions to make in combat. So long as the swashbuckler can pick up a shield and do something cool, and "the shield specialist" can drop the shield to grab a weapon with two hands if need be, then it would be cool.

In short, I want a Fighter to pick up any weapon, at any time, and wreck house with it in a way that is appropriate to that weapon. And not just melee weapons either. "Land-locking" a class into melee combat is a bad idea in games where you fight flying dragons, especially for the class that is supposed to be the best at combat in general.

This seems to be possible with the system, as long as the default option "deal extra damage" is not utterly surpassed by the alternative options that specialization may bring.

The problem with specializations like they exist in 3E in 4E is that you spend one character resource (feat, power) for a specific ability. If you can use the ability, everything works out, but if you cannot, then it's not just that you have a viable option less, it is that you actually have less "raw" power - it's as if you're a few feats or powers less.

That's why I am also against magic enhancement bonuses to attacks and for magic item abilities. With abilities, you can structure things in a way that they are just an option you can take instead of something else - you deal fire instead of slashing damage with a Flaming Longsword, or you can throw the Dwarven Thrower instead of making a melee attack with it.

Flexibility via such options is a type of power on its own, but it has a much softer impact on the mechanics of the game then taking away numerical bonuses. But on the other hand, their story impact is much more profound.

 

[TwoSix]

Now we're arriving at something. Sounds good in principle (and the idea is splatbook friendly, which won't hurt at the moment of getting adopted)

I wonder if the basics could be adapted to other classes; rogues already have backstab dice, and would be simple to expand the concept to them.

I would think it could be, but still provide differentiation.

If fighters get their dice every round, maybe rogues get more, but only at the start of the fight and contingent on certain narrative positioning. Like using stealth to sneak up and gain a surprise round. Or getting into an advantageous position in combat (by flanking, feinting, etc.) gives you back some dice. That would be pretty cool.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Looks like an interesting start.

My main concerns about the Fighter were...

(1) Lack of tactical options
(2) Lack of class features that belong to them as uniquely as other classes' features
(3) Ability to passably defend a party, say through Opportunity Attacks or something of that nature.

Today's article gets the first two started, at least. It looks pretty promising, and it's good to see they're re-thinking stuff based on feedback.

-O

I like it. A meta-resource and "disassociated" mechanic that allows the fighter some interesting options and shows them as the best at fighting. I have a feeling that the best choice is always going to be either more damage or DR - but that just needs polishing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is fairly similar to the ADnD ministrel knight bonus (which was a static +2). And i have fond memories of it. Deciding if you use it on attack, or a saving throw was a tactical decision I really liked. Even if it was used for attack bonus most of the time, it was still always an option in dangerous fights with spellcasters to use it otherwise.

So regaridng the new edition, i actually would like it if spending it on damage is the best use most of the time. This way, you usually don´t spend a lot of time thinking what to do with the dice, and you actually have a default mode, which you use, if you don´t call out something else.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Reflecting on the article and comments, I wonder whether this is functioning on a per-round basis on whether there will be a per-encounter element too. There are three ways I think this mechanic could work:

1. You gain your dice each round to spend before the end of the round or they are lost.
   
2. You gain a pool of dice at the start of the encounter to spend during that encounter.
   
3. You gain a pool of dice at the start of the encounter, and some more dice every round that accumulate.

The first could lead to spamming. The second could lead to boredom towards the end of combat. The third, in my opinion, would work best, allowing for frequent usage or saving up for a big kickass stunt.