D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[Obryn]

I think that MM actually brought it up in a recent article, but Fighters have always the baseline that every other class differentiates itself against. Rogues sacrifice armor and hit points in exchange for their special skills, wizards sacrifice all that and their weapons in exchange for a handful of spells, clerics sacrifice smaller amounts of weapons and attack bonus in exchange for less-useful divine magic.

But the Fighter doesn't have anything unique. It's just better at everything that everyone can do. That's what the Fighter was in every edition prior to the (incredibly controversial) Fourth Edition.

A level 10 Wizard or a level 8 Cleric might be just as good at fighting as a level 5 Fighter, but for any given level, a Fighter of that level will be the best at fighting.

You know I responded directly to much of this in the parts of my post you cut, right?

"Even if that's true - and it's largely not, except arguably for 3e - it's inadequate." And even in 3e, there was a realization it was inadequate, and Bo9S - a game-changer of a supplement if there ever was one - was introduced.

There needs to be a baseline when you're making classes in order to try and balance them, but there's no functional utility in that baseline actually being a playable class. I am saying the same metric I posted above should be true for the fighter - a Cleric 10 should never be able to fight the same way as a Fighter 3, any more than a Fighter 10 can cast more Cleric spells than a Cleric 3.

 

[Chaltab]

If you are not interested in fighting, don't choose the fighter.

Bwah? I am interested in fighting. That's why I want the Fighter class not to suck. I think the Battlemaster is a huge step in the right direction over the last playtest packet I read.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You know I responded directly to much of this in the parts of my post you cut, right?

"Even if that's true - and it's largely not, except arguably for 3e - it's inadequate." And even in 3e, there was a realization it was inadequate, and Bo9S - a game-changer of a supplement if there ever was one - was introduced.

I'm saying that it was also true of AD&D, though. The fighter in AD&D used the same basic attacks as the mage and thief did, except more of them and with bigger numbers. Even their high-level ability that was widely ignored - the gaining of followers - was just a better version of hirelings that anybody could buy.

The Book of Nine Swords was incredibly controversial, and also an obvious way of testing the waters for Fourth Edition. That it appealed to a certain type of player should not be seen as a mark against the 3.5 Fighter. Of note, one of the major groups who disliked the Book of Nine Swords was those who enjoyed the basic attack Fighter, and many of those players did not continue on to support Fourth Edition.

That the Fighter is a flavorful class with its own schtick and unique mechanics is a mark of division between players, which is why they are supporting it but sticking it into a sub-class where it can be safely ignored.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The problem with the design you're describing is that even with impeccable balance on a number-crunch level, you risk boring players--if not from the lack of options in a fight, then from the lack of utility when fighting isn't the party's goal.

Of course, the opposite is also an issue - many find spellcasters to be over-whelming, to the point of unplayability. I know that I'm certainly not up to the task of playing a Cleric ever, which is unfortunate because I do enjoy the healing role.

Hopefully, they can handle this with sub-classes. Instead of every Fighter being simple and every Mage being complex, maybe they can make one complicated Fighter sub-class and one basic Mage sub-class.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The Book of Nine Swords was incredibly controversial, and also an obvious way of testing the waters for Fourth Edition. That it appealed to a certain type of player should not be seen as a mark against the 3.5 Fighter. Of note, one of the major groups who disliked the Book of Nine Swords was those who enjoyed the basic attack Fighter, and many of those players did not continue on to support Fourth Edition.

One thing I've actually been surprised by is the number of people who still post Bo9S builds and ask questions about it and reference it in 3e rules threads, even over five years after 3e stopped publishing. It may be a very small subset, and perhaps the people posting charop threads on the internet are more inclined towards this sort of stuff, but I wouldn't take it as given that there's a one to one correlation in the player base between Bo9S and future 4e support. Even with Bo9S (which I am on the side of hating), you're getting a much better set of classes and a much better system overall, for exactly the reasons we're talking about here.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Of course, the opposite is also an issue - many find spellcasters to be over-whelming, to the point of unplayability. I know that I'm certainly not up to the task of playing a Cleric ever, which is unfortunate because I do enjoy the healing role.

Indeed. I don't think magic and regular actions are comparable, but I definitely think that the appropriate direction overall is to make simpler and more straightforward magic, rather than complicated and restrictive fighting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As far as I'm concerned, classes are a lot more central to D&D than simply convenient packages. That's what they devolved (decayed?) into during 3e, and it's why that edition feels the least like D&D to me of all of them.

And here I thought it was evolving beyond classes. In 3e, if you're playing core only and starting level 1, you are your class. If you play to level 10 and allow in the supplements, any given character is likely to have two or more classes, variant class abilities, feats that duplicate or supersede class abilities, magic items that are often more important than class abilities, and perhaps may be a monstrous character with more levels in his species than his class. You can have class abilities from virtually any class you are interested in, through one means or another.

At that point, you are not your class. What class choice you made at first level does not really restrict what you can do later. I file that under "evolution".

 

[EnglishLanguage]

About the last part of your post.

If you are not interested in fighting, don't choose the fighter.

Define "fighting"

 

[Obryn]

At that point, you are not your class. What class choice you made at first level does not really restrict what you can do later. I file that under "evolution".

You see, I call that, "exchanging a vibrant class-based system for tepid point buy."

I have nothing against games which use skills or points for advancement. It's just not what I want out of D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You see, I call that, "exchanging a vibrant class-based system for tepid point buy."

I call it D&D.

Without really disagreeing with that though. A 3e character grows from being fairly class-based to being less so the more levels and power he gains. If one sees classes as a beginner tool to help people conceptualize their characters, that makes sense. As the character grows in level, the player becomes more advanced and no longer needs a list of class abilities to constrain his choices.

Which to me, is kind of what the "D&D for all" would look like.