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

[Chaltab]

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.

If you're useless or barely useful most of the time, like the 3.5 Fighter is, then yes, that is bad design.

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).

...I... what... no.. No. I'm not referring to 'performance' in the sense of stage performance of musical performance. I mean in terms of how much effect they can have on the gameworld, they're p. terrible compared to just about every non-martial melee combatant, but especially the BO9S meleeists.

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.

Except no, it's not. The AD&D editions gave the fighter things like soldiers and underlings and had them upgrade to things like Paladins, which became its own seperate class later on. Meanwhile, the Basic line of games had weapon mastery and are generally better designed than AD&D to begin with--even though you're wrong about AD&D, it's still not exactly inspired fighter design, and not really doable in the modern game where the party doesn't have underlings most of the time.

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... what? None of those things are even remotely true. The 4E fighter is a weapon based class with limited ranged attack capability that focuses on the exact thing you've been saying it should: fighting. The Weaponmaster subclass (the PHB1 version) focuses on defending allies by creating a front line for the fighting, and gets bonuses to techniques based on their combinations of weapons, shields, etc. Even within the Weaponmaster there are plenty of options. The Slayer and Knight are simpler subclasses, the former being primarily a damage-dealing class that gets power attacks, and the latter being a more standard sword and board fighter that defends allies within its immediate vicinity. None of them get spells without taking multiclassing or racial options that grant them. In my first 4E game I took a Dwarven Greatweapon Fighter from L.2 to L.12, and she was a load of fun to play. Moreover, being super athletic and history buff she had utility outside of combat. Even using the same basic theme, a 3rd Edition fighter is not mechanically sound enough to compare, and this is largely because of the generic design you're advocating: without something specific to design toward, a class becomes 'throw everything that sounds good, don't bother to make sure it works.'.

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.

But then you begin to dilute the game enough that you might as well play a system that better supports that style of play. D&D is a square peg. There's nothing wrong with a square peg and a round hole, but you'll have more luck if you find a round peg.

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.

I think it's better to start with something mechanically sound and adjust it based on feedback than it is to start with something in extremely dire need of repairs and patch it up--at least for the core, the basic martial class. Experimental or 'concept' classes can work, but starting with a failed concept and improving it seems backwards to me.

 

[Obryn]

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).

Boy, we seriously couldn't disagree more. That's exactly the opposite of a well-designed class, in my mind. Bland, flavorless, and without any interesting "hooks."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I started playing and running D&D with a basic box put out during 2e (the one with the city of freedale and the high wizard Neathrel) I remember seeing fighters for a good long time, then we got introduced to a player who loved wizards and played them to the hilt... we still saw fighters after that, but only multi or duel classed...

When 3e came along we thought the bonus feats would make fighters awesome again... but no after a few tries we found that the best you could do was dip a few levels (mostly 2) for bonus feats then take 'real' classes. Then came our real answer... Book of 9 swords replaced fighter in our games (except for the occasional 2 level dips) with warblade and swordsage.

4e was even better. We had fighters, and Warlords that let us play the characters we wanted to back in 2e and 3e but never had mechanical ways to do so...

Fighters in 5e sink or swim when I want to play the concepts of a warlord (4e) or Warblade (3e) in that phb

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's exactly the opposite of a well-designed class, in my mind. Bland, flavorless, and without any interesting "hooks."

Exactly. It doesn't limit you to one type of flavor or "hook" you into one mechanical subsystem (like, say, some specialized maneuvers). It just gives you more of some stuff (the stuff that's relevant to melee combat) than it does of some other stuff.

Except no, it's not. The AD&D editions gave the fighter things like soldiers and underlings and had them upgrade to things like Paladins, which became its own seperate class later on.

I don't recall any of our 2e fighters ever having followers or going to any other classes. It was all about those extra half attacks on the way to grandmastery and rolling high on your extreme strength to start. I don't think any of those other bits were really central to the class.

Fighter was also, to be fair, the most commonly available multiclass for the various demihumans, and the fighter/thieves and fighter/mages were quite common in those days (a dynamic that 3e lost, to some extent). But a straight up fighter was about as monolithic of an "I attack" machine as you could get. And without feats or skills, they didn't even have any advantages in the NWP arena IIRC.

Even using the same basic theme, a 3rd Edition fighter is not mechanically sound enough to compare, and this is largely because of the generic design you're advocating: without something specific to design toward, a class becomes 'throw everything that sounds good, don't bother to make sure it works.'.

Well, we're pretty sure it works now.

But then you begin to dilute the game enough that you might as well play a system that better supports that style of play. D&D is a square peg. There's nothing wrong with a square peg and a round hole, but you'll have more luck if you find a round peg.

I get old school. People who don't want to change anything because they like the D&D game they grew up with. It's not me, but it makes sense.

What I don't get is how people can somehow reconcile adding in elements that are completely antithetical to old school D&D (including class-specific maneuvers/powers/etc. for the fighter, resource limitations on the same, martial healing, martial mind control), but when faced with the possibility of other less radical and more parsimonious changes, cry out that D&D is a special snowflake, not a general fantasy rpg, and it can't ever change. The amount of cognitive dissonance inherent in that perspective is mind-boggling to me.

I think it's better to start with something mechanically sound and adjust it based on feedback than it is to start with something in extremely dire need of repairs and patch it up--at least for the core, the basic martial class. Experimental or 'concept' classes can work, but starting with a failed concept and improving it seems backwards to me.

Indeed. And that's what I'm saying. Each mechanical system (skills, the combat rules, health and healing, magic, etc.) should be built in its entirely, be thoroughly tested and be functional across a broad range of applications, completely independent of any particular class. Specific character building rules like classes are simply not inherent to d20 or D&D at large.

To the extent that the fighter in its various incarnations has problems, it is simply symptomatic of bigger system issues. The lack of active defense, the limitations of an outmoded health system, the lack of granularity and the linear advancement. Those things are there for all the classes (in all the editions), but they look worse in fighters because there are no separate exception-based mechanics (like spells or powers) being employed to paper over those deficiencies. I'm far more interested in improving the system than I am in covering my ears and pretending like everything's fine.

All that being said, if I were playing a new 3e game today (or 2e or earlier game), I'd take a fighter any day. It may show D&D's warts, but if I'm playing D&D, I might as well accept them. And it's a better class than most.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

All that being said, if I were playing a new 3e game today (or 2e or earlier game), I'd take a fighter any day. It may show D&D's warts, but if I'm playing D&D, I might as well accept them. And it's a better class than most.

To be a fighter as in the class presented in the phb1 you would have to pay me to play one in those editions... and even though some of my favorite concepts are for those archtypes I still wouldn't use them...same goes with pathfinder (that you might have to pay me to play anything in)

3e had a good balanced group of classes, but most were not in phb. A warlock, a beguiler, a warblade, and a archavist were much better balanced then a rogue, wizard, fighter, cleric...

 

[Ahnehnois]

To be a fighter as in the class presented in the phb1 you would have to pay me to play one in those editions... and even though some of my favorite concepts are for those archtypes I still wouldn't use them...same goes with pathfinder (that you might have to pay me to play anything in)

Honestly, if I had the chance I'd spot you a free pizza or something on behalf of the group just to show you what a fighter looks like in one of my games. I mean, I get that you're jaded and that's okay, but you don't seem to get that you're jaded.

3e had a good balanced group of classes, but most were not in phb. A warlock, a beguiler, a warblade, and a archavist were much better balanced then a rogue, wizard, fighter, cleric...

I don't think it's far-fetched to say that some new and better ideas appeared over time. I'd certainly hope that's the case; if they're not making anything new and better they shouldn't be publishing books.

In fact, the beguiler and its specialized spontaneous casting brethren were an interesting idea...that was totally abandoned in 4e and hasn't resurfaced since. Nor was it ever expanded to divine casting. The warlock was a very interesting idea...that was abandoned and hasn't resurfaced since (it has reappeared in name but has lost the distinctive resource-free mechanics and simple focus of the 3e version). The archivist...well I wouldn't replace the cleric with it but it's another cool idea that disappeared. The warblade, oddly enough, is the only one of those that has not been discarded, and and somehow become the model for the fighter, which it was originally intended to coexist with in some people's games, not replace in everyone's. And it was perhaps the worst received of all of those.

Talk about not learning from experience.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Honestly, if I had the chance I'd spot you a free pizza or something on behalf of the group just to show you what a fighter looks like in one of my games. I mean, I get that you're jaded and that's okay, but you don't seem to get that you're jaded.

I'm not sure jaded is the right word, but I can't come up with a better one right now...

[DND]I don't think it's far-fetched to say that some new and better ideas appeared over time. I'd certainly hope that's the case; if they're not making anything new and better they shouldn't be publishing books.[/DND]

yup... progress makes things better (not everytime, some things get worse)

In fact, the beguiler and its specialized spontaneous casting brethren were an interesting idea...that was totally abandoned in 4e and hasn't resurfaced since.

the idea I loved was to break the wizard up. I invisioned (and was totally wrong) that 3e would not have a wizard but an invoker, a necromancer, a conjurer ect... some cross over spells. I would go with the 1/3 1/3 1/3 rule myself
[sblock=my caster idea]
I would take the basic schools of magic and make them how to do each 'sub class' and have each one have 1/3 of there spell list be completely shared, 1/3 completely unique and 1/3 partial shared

example: everyone has detect magic, only half the classes get buringin hands, only the invoker gets magic missle [/sblock]

Nor was it ever expanded to divine casting

. I know the specialist priest and spheres of 2e was almost like it, why didn't they work more on that...

The warlock was a very interesting idea...that was abandoned and hasn't resurfaced since (it has reappeared in name but has lost the distinctive resource-free mechanics and simple focus of the 3e version).

I agree I liked 4e classs but seeing it go back to it's 3e roots would be great.

The archivist...well I wouldn't replace the cleric with it but it's another cool idea that disappeared.

I may have been reatching by that point...

The warblade, oddly enough, is the only one of those that has not been discarded, and and somehow become the model for the fighter, which it was originally intended to coexist with in some people's games, not replace in everyone's. And it was perhaps the worst received of all of those.

I think some how it's hard to go back to 'basic attack' once you start to work with maneuvers.

 

[Obryn]

Exactly. It doesn't limit you to one type of flavor or "hook" you into one mechanical subsystem (like, say, some specialized maneuvers). It just gives you more of some stuff (the stuff that's relevant to melee combat) than it does of some other stuff.

...which, like I said, is exactly the opposite of what a class should be in D&D. You want classes to be more like d20 Modern or Star Wars Saga Edition. I think those are fine games, but not what I want in D&D.

I get old school. People who don't want to change anything because they like the D&D game they grew up with. It's not me, but it makes sense.

What I don't get is how people can somehow reconcile adding in elements that are completely antithetical to old school D&D (including class-specific maneuvers/powers/etc. for the fighter, resource limitations on the same, martial healing, martial mind control), but when faced with the possibility of other less radical and more parsimonious changes, cry out that D&D is a special snowflake, not a general fantasy rpg, and it can't ever change. The amount of cognitive dissonance inherent in that perspective is mind-boggling to me.

Well, clearly because what you see as integral to D&D is different from what I think is integral to D&D.

Frankly, 90% of the stuff you've written on this thread, I just can't reconcile your perspective, either.

 

[Mistwell]

cry out that D&D is a special snowflake, not a general fantasy rpg, and it can't ever change.

It is special. It's not generic fantasy. It's pretty much one of the only things 99.9% of D&D players agree on - that there is this special "something" that to them is D&D that distinguishes it from your everyday generic fantasy game. It's why the game, or a clone of the game, has been top of the RPG charts since it was originally released, with possible exception during the Vampire era between 2e and 3e.

There are lots of generic fantasy RPGs out there. D&D isn't one of them. D&D is a specific fantasy RPG. We might disagree as to what should go into those specifics, but aside from some extreme outliers like yourself, we all agree it's a specific fantasy RPG.

 

[Ahnehnois]

the idea I loved was to break the wizard up. I invisioned (and was totally wrong) that 3e would not have a wizard but an invoker, a necromancer, a conjurer ect... some cross over spells. I would go with the 1/3 1/3 1/3 rule myself
[sblock=my caster idea]
I would take the basic schools of magic and make them how to do each 'sub class' and have each one have 1/3 of there spell list be completely shared, 1/3 completely unique and 1/3 partial shared

That sounds fine to me. It's one of those things that I think would be hard to sell to traditionalists who like their omni-cleric and omni-wizard. But I wouldn't object to more specialized magic classes at all given how vague the traditional versions are. The specialized classes also allow more development; instead of being commoners with spells whose entire development is tied to this subsystem, beguilers can have some rogue skills, warmages can have some combat abilities, true necromancers can become liches, etc.

I know the specialist priest and spheres of 2e was almost like it, why didn't they work more on that...

It does seem that domains were supposed to do that, but they don't (at least, not in the core rules; given the spontaneous casting clerics from UA who have full access to their domain spells but not to cures, the domains can be game-changers).

It's very odd given that conceptually it seems like divine casting makes more sense to go the spontaneous route or even the non-spell route (like a warlock), but that territory was never explored. With 5e, I had hoped the priest class might be that, but it was scrapped for some reason.

I may have been reatching by that point...

Maybe, but you also left out some interesting ones like the dragon shaman (much better than the marshal), the scout, and some of the weird alternate magic stuff (incarnum and ToM). Not that it was all polished or even all good, but there is a lot of 3e material that could have been influential but has instead been ignored.

I think some how it's hard to go back to 'basic attack' once you start to work with maneuvers.

I didn't have any trouble stepping back from, say, the 3e knight's challenges. Seems to me, rules-light, just say you're going to attack and be done with it is a pretty natural direction.

...which, like I said, is exactly the opposite of what a class should be in D&D. You want classes to be more like d20 Modern or Star Wars Saga Edition.

Or like 3e. Those games were all built off the same system and shared similar goals. Modern tells us a lot about what D&D could be.

Frankly, 90% of the stuff you've written on this thread, I just can't reconcile your perspective, either.

With what? I mean, you may not like my direction for things, but I'm nothing if not consistent.