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

[Derren]

but if whole combats go by where you're mostly just zoning out or checking your email, it may be a problem with the design.

What about non-combat? You have to restrict the non-combat part of the game very hard to even attempt to write a system where every possible character is useful in every non combat situation. And even if they succeed, I am not sure the result can still be called an RPG.

Class-based systems give the benefit of a more focused experience, at the cost of freedom. Every class comes with a bunch of baggage about what it means to belong to that class, and that's not always a bad thing, because it ties you more into the world that has been defined in the lore.

I don't agree with that. Just look at Shadowrun for example. It is classless, but has some very strong archetypes that players can and often do follow. But it also allows for unconventional characters just fine.

 

[Chaltab]

What about non-combat? You have to restrict the non-combat part of the game very hard to even attempt to write a system where every possible character is useful in every non combat situation. And even if they succeed, I am not sure the result can still be called an RPG.

I just said there are exceptions to that rule and even gave examples. Either way this really isn't the topic--if there's not a thread for debating the merits and drawbacks of class-based design, you could perhaps make one. D&D Next certainly isn't abandoning class based design so it's not even topical to the edition this discussion is about.

Edit: Nobody is arguing that there are no advantages to classless design. Pointing to Shadowrun is all well and good, but we're not discussing Shadowrun in this thread.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think class systems are any more complex. Not by default anyway.

If the final product is a free-form play the character you want system, then adding classes on is an extra layer of complexity. If it's a more restrictive system that enforces niches, than perhaps not.

However, as far as D&D is concerned, that cat is out of the bag. Now that it's possible to play a hellbred half-troll fighter(thug)/warlock/Green Star Adept, there's really no going back to a truly niche-protected, class-based paradigm. Not that WotC isn't set on trying for some reason.

As for never being useless, even if it's not the default assumption it should at least be a goal in designing a system.

I don't. For one thing, it's not much of a game of skill if none of the choices available to you are wrong. For another, it's not much of a roleplaying experience unless you're sometimes in the position of being impotent. Either way, the assertion that you should be involved or useful at all times doesn't hold.

Again, I go back to the 3.X fighter: using him as a 'default' next to the rest of the classes resulted in the fighter not getting much in the way of unique options, and those unique options it did get often required multiple feat taxes and very specific builds to get to function at a workable level.

Indeed. It represents the best piece of class design D&D has ever seen. It represents archetypes, orients beginners to mechanical elements that need to go together in order to be effective in combat, and allows advanced players to indulge in flexible character creation. Spice up those odd-numbered levels and D&D class design is done (save for all those other pesky classes that need to be fixed of course).

The lack of unique options is not obstacle at all to the class's functionality or popularity. It's not a problem and therefore doesn't need to be fixed.

 

[keterys]

However, as far as D&D is concerned, that cat is out of the bag. Now that it's possible to play a hellbred half-troll fighter(thug)/warlock/Green Star Adept, there's really no going back to a truly niche-protected, class-based paradigm. Not that WotC isn't set on trying for some reason.

Errm, that statement is only really true in 3e, and it's pretty easy to dodge back from it. A star elf fighter/invoker (bladesinger) is complex but still around one focus, but we don't need to allow mixed levels of every class willy nilly going to strange other classes with prereqs while letting you burn levels on strange races with or without hit dice or templates or...

I mean, that might be what we end up with, but it's certainly no requirement of D&D.

(Discussing the fighter)

Indeed. It represents the best piece of class design D&D has ever seen. It represents archetypes, orients beginners to mechanical elements that need to go together in order to be effective in combat, and allows advanced players to indulge in flexible character creation. Spice up those odd-numbered levels and D&D class design is done (save for all those other pesky classes that need to be fixed of course).

I think the 3e fighter is an awful class. It's little more than a point-buy fill in, but done poorly, with poor skill access, no abilities outside a niche, very little access to anything anyone else can get, abilities dwarfed by most other classes, a _ton_ of ability to shoot himself in the foot with bad choices, and almost no flavor whatsoever.

Plus dead levels and math problems (there's a reason people stopped taking the class at level 4!), though you do concede those.

I'd rather have d20 Modern class design than the 3e fighter. At least there was a basic theme and pattern going on there.

 

[Chaltab]

If the final product is a free-form play the character you want system, then adding classes on is an extra layer of complexity. If it's a more restrictive system that enforces niches, than perhaps not.

However, as far as D&D is concerned, that cat is out of the bag. Now that it's possible to play a hellbred half-troll fighter(thug)/warlock/Green Star Adept, there's really no going back to a truly niche-protected, class-based paradigm. Not that WotC isn't set on trying for some reason.

Well, 4th Edition went back to a class-based paradigm. Whether you personally like it or not, this was one of the reasons its fans enjoyed it. Moreover, in an edition that's supposed to be about embracing tradition, the outlier that is 3rd edition is an odd thing to make your core concept.

I don't. For one thing, it's not much of a game of skill if none of the choices available to you are wrong. For another, it's not much of a roleplaying experience unless you're sometimes in the position of being impotent. Either way, the assertion that you should be involved or useful at all times doesn't hold.

You should at least be involved and useful enough that the game holds your attention. If you're presistently useless, then yes, that is bad design. And I'm not sure what you mean about 'game of skill' here. I'm not saying that all player choices are right, I'm saying that no class should be useless. If the Fighter is useless, then it's badly designed. If it's badly designed, then why should I pay WOTC for a new edition of the game when I have imperfectly good prior editions?

Indeed. It represents the best piece of class design D&D has ever seen. It represents archetypes, orients beginners to mechanical elements that need to go together in order to be effective in combat, and allows advanced players to indulge in flexible character creation. Spice up those odd-numbered levels and D&D class design is done (save for all those other pesky classes that need to be fixed of course).

That's kind of hilarious. "It represents the best piece of class design D&D has ever seen"--except for all those other pesky classes that need to be fixed. But I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The 3rd, and 3.5th edition Fighter class is consistently among the worst-performing classes in the game. Even minimimaxed to the zenith, a decently optimized class from any tier above it has far more utility and effect on the game world than the Fighter. I'd call the 3E fighter one of the WORST designed classes D&D has ever seen. Even within 3E I'd say only the Monk is flat out worse.

The lack of unique options is not obstacle at all to the class's functionality or popularity. It's not a problem and therefore doesn't need to be fixed.

Again, the only version of the fighter where 'lack of unique options' was a core conceit was 3rd Edition, and it is among the least effective classes in the game. Moreover, the Fighter and its subclasses in 4th Edition are FAR more effective on both a numbers level and at utility outside damage that to reverse course would be asinne. The Slayer, Knight, and Weapon-master/Battle-master archetypes are all solid work from WOTC, and despite the controversy over things like 'Come and Get It' they're a much better starting place than the 3E fighter.

 

[keterys]

I'd call the 3E fighter one of the WORST designed classes D&D has ever seen. Even within 3E I'd say only the Monk is flat out worse.

Eh, I actually think the monk is tremendously better designed than the fighter.

It's worse only in one aspect: damage output, which is more a systemic problem (in the same way improved unarmed strike is such a horrible feat: people think unarmed should suck, so it sucks), lack of rules for things like enchanted gauntlets or ki foci or whatever so that the magic system applies to them rather than gleefully leaping past them.

It has _loads_ more flavor, utility, interesting built-in options, suggestions of fun maneuvers, interaction outside of combat, even survivability.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't agree with that. Just look at Shadowrun for example. It is classless, but has some very strong archetypes that players can and often do follow. But it also allows for unconventional characters just fine.

That wasn't my point. Rather, my point was that you would have more flavor if the game was class-based instead of point-based, not that any given class-based system is definitionally more flavorful than any given point-based system. Even then, Shadowrun is a weird example because it kind of does have classes, at least in a broad sense - how many dozens of other systems have the same martial/magic/hybrid class dynamic?

 

[Ahnehnois]

You should at least be involved and useful enough that the game holds your attention. If you're presistently useless, then yes, that is bad design. And I'm not sure what you mean about 'game of skill' here. I'm not saying that all player choices are right, I'm saying that no class should be useless. If the Fighter is useless, then it's badly designed. If it's badly designed, then why should I pay WOTC for a new edition of the game when I have imperfectly good prior editions?

It's a fighter. If you're not fighting (which sometimes you're not in D&D) its usefulness should be optional at best. If you are fighting, you should be useful much of the time, but occasionally not. That's not bad design, that's delivering on what the character promises.

In a game example, if you're faced with an arcane puzzle, your wizard or bard should be the one handling it, and your fighter and barbarian should be twiddling their thumbs (barring rare exceptions wherein the martial character has some off-type ability; anything's possible). If you don't have any smart characters with magical knowledge and you face an arcane puzzle, your party should be fairly helpless. Again, that's not a fault of the game; that's it doing what it's supposed to do: describing what your character is in mechanical terms. The same applies to combat, of course. If you're sneak attacked by goblin assassins and all you've got are a bunch of generalist wizards resting and recovering spells, it probably won't (and shouldn't) end well.

But I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The 3rd, and 3.5th edition Fighter class is consistently among the worst-performing classes in the game.

I assume you're referring to its stereotypically low Charisma and lack of Perform as a class skill? In terms of building an effective melee combatant, it's quite effective (the first few levels before you multiclass and hit prestige classes are, anyway). Fighters are significantly better at fighting than the other martial classes (and they smoke most of the summoned creatures/pets/buffed casters, contrary to the occasional naysayer).

Again, the only version of the fighter where 'lack of unique options' was a core conceit was 3rd Edition

And all the other editions before it, wherein various bonus attacks and bonuses to THCAC0 and higher strength were the (non-unique) things it was based around. I don't remember there being a maneuver system of any sort in AD&D. To be fair, the kits probably did bring unique things to the table, but the original fighter class is basically a really good version of the 3e fighter but without the feats.

I think the 3e fighter is an awful class. It's little more than a point-buy fill in, but done poorly, with poor skill access, no abilities outside a niche, very little access to anything anyone else can get, abilities dwarfed by most other classes, a _ton_ of ability to shoot himself in the foot with bad choices, and almost no flavor whatsoever.

I happen to think the 4e fighter is an awful class. It's little more than a reskinned spellcaster, but done poorly, with flavorless powers that occasionally violate common sense, little access to anything worthwhile, abilities dwarfed by most of the other editions versions, no meaningful choices, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Uh, let's meet in the middle...

I'd rather have d20 Modern class design than the 3e fighter.

Well, okay. I'm lukewarm on the ability based classes, but the overall basic-advanced-prestige paradigm and the relative flexibility of the classes is nice. Not much niche protection and arbitrary limitation there.

Plus dead levels and math problems (there's a reason people stopped taking the class at level 4!), though you do concede those.

Of course; the first two or perhaps even four levels of fighter are very good, after that the dead levels become a problem. But that's largely irrelevant. Given the proliferation of prestige classes (like them or dislike them), a 3e "fighter" will not normally stay single-classed beyond that point anyway, nor will most of the other core classes. And those bonus feats are indeed very useful in terms of prestige class prereqs. In essence, it is the d20 Modern approach; start out with one generic class and move to a specialized one.

Of course, filling in those dead levels with some handy bonuses and changing nothing else (as PF did) is a perfectly viable solution of getting rid of the prestige classes and fixing some of those issues. To fix the math, we'd probably have to add more saves or save progressions, active defense mechanics, new health systems, something that gets us out of the existing D&D paradigm of how combat works (something that neither 4e or 5e seem keen on doing). That being said, it can be patched up pretty well.

 

[Derren]

That wasn't my point. Rather, my point was that you would have more flavor if the game was class-based instead of point-based, not that any given class-based system is definitionally more flavorful than any given point-based system. Even then, Shadowrun is a weird example because it kind of does have classes, at least in a broad sense - how many dozens of other systems have the same martial/magic/hybrid class dynamic?

I fail to see how fighter, cleric or thief have all that much flavor in D&D. The specialized/hybrid classes like druid and paladin have a little bit more but in the end they are also rather generic and bland. To come back to Shadowrun, no it does not have classes. It has three big limitations. Magic and Resonance must be bought at character creation , they are mutually exclusive and Cyberware does not mix well with them (more of a soft limitation).

And still, the archetypes, even though they are not fixed into a progression and can be tackled in many different ways (for example, cybered Streetsam or Physical Adept) and have no fixed definition (the lines between Street Samurai, Razorboy/girl and weapon specialist are kinda blurry) have a lot more flavor than any base class in D&D. Could classes have even more flavor? In a fixed setting like SR, maybe. But D&D has always been more of a toolbox which means the classes need to be generic at some level and can't take advantage of the supposed better flavor anyway. The worst of both worlds so to speak.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I fail to see how fighter, cleric or thief have all that much flavor in D&D. The specialized/hybrid classes like druid and paladin have a little bit more but in the end they are also rather generic and bland. To come back to Shadowrun, no it does not have classes. It has three big limitations. Magic and Resonance must be bought at character creation , they are mutually exclusive and Cyberware does not mix well with them (more of a soft limitation).

It's not so clear cut as you make it sound, because it's all a matter of presentation. If you have to choose to have magic, or have resonance, or not, then that's a choice on the level of a class. Unless things have changed even more than I thought they have, wizards still have to choose a path, don't they? So you could say that the list of possible classes are: Mage, Shaman, Physical Adept, Resonance-person, Mundane.

Like most games nowadays, Shadowrun features a mix of class-based and point-buy, leaning more toward the latter end of the spectrum. D&D has point-buy elements, too, though - skills and feats both transcend the limitations of a pure class-based game.