Conceptual Problem - Fighter vs. Ranger

[ExploderWizard]

While each class may enjoy larger roles in specific pillars, at no point should any class, and therefore their player, be unable to participate.

Agree completely. Role=combat was merely emphasis on the area of greatest expertise.

I honestly have fairly low expectations for "themes", I expect them to be little more than fluff.

I think we really need more fluff that influences play. Plain bonuses to things are what get boring really fast.

 

[Sunseeker]

Agree completely. Role=combat was merely emphasis on the area of greatest expertise.

Fair enough, I guess I've just seen a lot of arguments of late claiming that's ALL a fighter should be able to do(ironically usually from the people who oppose 4'e roles the hardest). Any class that can only do one aspect of the game, regardless of how awesome they are, is a class I don't want to play.

I think we really need more fluff that influences play. Plain bonuses to things are what get boring really fast.

I suppose it depends exactly how that fluff influences play, at the end it will all boil down to bonuses of penalties, but I think the way it's presented is highly important.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Fair enough, I guess I've just seen a lot of arguments of late claiming that's ALL a fighter should be able to do(ironically usually from the people who oppose 4'e roles the hardest). Any class that can only do one aspect of the game, regardless of how awesome they are, is a class I don't want to play.

Me either. All classes should be able to partcipate in every aspect of the game to some degree.

Having each class with a strong, medium, or poor ranking in each of the pillars or something equal such as medium, medium, medium for a jack of all trades type of character.

Poor doesn't have to mean useless. It could represent a hper narrow focus that is very useful. For example a fighter might have poor overall interaction meaning he isn't the smooth talker but in areas of inspring loyalty and courage, he could be exceptional.

 

[Sunseeker]

Poor doesn't have to mean useless. It could represent a hper narrow focus that is very useful. For example a fighter might have poor overall interaction meaning he isn't the smooth talker but in areas of inspring loyalty and courage, he could be exceptional.

Exactly, such as my example with using intimidate. It's got it's specific uses, but it's not what you're going to want to use on every noble or guard you meet. Might be the best solution for that Orc Chieftain though.

 

[MooMan68]

I think D&D does a poor job of letting one fighter class both be a heavily armored knight and a lightly armored mobile fighter. The AC rules just don't support it well.

Max dex penalties try, but really they aren't enough.

To do it right I suspect you would need dex penalties and damage reduction rules. The former might work within classic D&D, the latter wouldn't IMHO. I've tried.

So the only way around it is with two different classes. One fighter who focuses on heavy armor, and one who focuses on mobility.

I think the Fighter/Ranger/Thief classes dance around this problem without ever hitting it right.

I suggest Mercenary and Knight as themes of the Heavy Fighter.

A Ranger, Barbarian, and maybe even Thief as themes of the Light Fighter.

 

[Oni]

There was a time when I thought it would be best to collapse all the classes down into two, Heroes and Magicians. And allowing the characters to be differentiated by their skill and feat selections (feats being much chunkier and interesting than they were in either 3e or 4e). With a good skill selection they could choose thief like skills, wilderness survival skills, or social/leadership skills. et c. Favored enemies = feat, Holy Sword = feat, Berserker Rage = feat, Sneak Attack = feat, Armour Training = Feat, et c. Of course, this isn't so different from just having a bunch of different classes for each little archetype. I think it would be a perfectly workable system, and though I occasionally still mull on it, it wouldn't really be D&D, the wide array of classes has long been a feature of the game and taking them away would take away some of the feel of the game IMHO.

 

[pemerton]

I think we really need more fluff that influences play. Plain bonuses to things are what get boring really fast.

I suppose it depends exactly how that fluff influences play, at the end it will all boil down to bonuses of penalties, but I think the way it's presented is highly important.

I agree with EW, and I disagree that in the end it has to boil down to bonuses and penalties.

In AD&D, the thief becomes powerful when sneaking but is weak when out front. Leaving to one side whether AD&D thieves are underpowered overall, this is something where fluff isn't just bonuses or penalties - the player of the thief has to engage with the fiction - find a way for his/her PC to sneak in behind the enemies - and this has an interesting effect on the dynamics of combat.

4e has a lot of this sort of stuff. It's true there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether, by putting it all on a grid, there is a danger of the fiction dropping out (my view is the fiction can and should stay in, but that the techniques for achieving this aren't always made clear in the rulebooks). But putting that to one side, the need for the rogue to flank, or the consequences of the controller or defender repositioning, or immoblising, an enemy, introduces a dynamic that is more than just bonuses and penalties. It is a different dimension of engagement with the fiction.

Social stuff in D&D needs more of this. Skill challenges are an attempt, and I'm one of the minority of defenders of the concept, but it seems clear that (again, in my view, mostly through poor explanatory text and half-baked adventure writing) they have failed as a mechanic as far as popular uptake is concerned.

When it's time to talk to the king, for example, it should make a difference whether a PC is a berserker, or a warpriest, or a knight commander, or a grizzled veteran - and not just in terms of bonuses or penalties, but in terms of how this affects the fictional situation and its resolution.

 

[Nebulous]

It really is that simple. With the design of the game aimed at gameplay in all 3 pillars, the fighter has his niche-hitting things.

Barbarians, paladins, rangers, knights, etc. there are all just fighters with a certain theme.

I know, i agree. The clever application of kits in 5e should be able to transform the base fighter into ANY class anyone can imagine. Or, just play the base fighter without any elaboration.

Look at it this way....if Conan, Robin Hood and King Arthur are all fighters, and all level 18...it makes sense that their chance of hitting and damage output are all similar, even though they have vastly different styles and defenses. They still are all badasses in combat. They are inherently ALL fighters with different flavors that i think can be fixed by kits....in the case above, the Barbarian, Ranger and Warlord/Noble kit.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree with EW, and I disagree that in the end it has to boil down to bonuses and penalties.

In AD&D, the thief becomes powerful when sneaking but is weak when out front. Leaving to one side whether AD&D thieves are underpowered overall, this is something where fluff isn't just bonuses or penalties - the player of the thief has to engage with the fiction - find a way for his/her PC to sneak in behind the enemies - and this has an interesting effect on the dynamics of combat.

While it's true that these features of a class force a player to think differently, I think there's a very valid way to look at these things in terms of +X/-Y to your gaming. Rogue loses X sneak attack when not flanking, ect...

When it's time to talk to the king, for example, it should make a difference whether a PC is a berserker, or a warpriest, or a knight commander, or a grizzled veteran - and not just in terms of bonuses or penalties, but in terms of how this affects the fictional situation and its resolution.

True, but I don't feel there's a safe way to rule this in, aside from writing exactly what you just wrote. Do barbarians always deal poorly with leadership? Or do barbarians deal well with the leadership of other less civilized people's?
I think a lot of tables probably take into consideration who is talking beyond simply the stats on the sheet. But again, I'm not real sure there's a safe way to word it without making it sound like the Barbarian must always suck at conversation, and the Bard must always excel.

4e has a lot of this sort of stuff. It's true there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether, by putting it all on a grid, there is a danger of the fiction dropping out (my view is the fiction can and should stay in, but that the techniques for achieving this aren't always made clear in the rulebooks). But putting that to one side, the need for the rogue to flank, or the consequences of the controller or defender repositioning, or immoblising, an enemy, introduces a dynamic that is more than just bonuses and penalties. It is a different dimension of engagement with the fiction.

I really get the feeling though that this seems like less of a rules issue and more of a table issue. I'm not sure I would trust Wizards to word their "suggestions" properly on this subject.

 

[triqui]

One possibility for definining how it could be, is taking inspiration from oriental martial arts where they differentiate between a -jutsu and a -do.

A -jutsu art is all about the techniques and carries no superior purpose (e.g. ethical) because the techniques *are* the purpose, while a -do art treats the techniques themselves as the mean to achieve a higher purpose to (put in blunt and naive terms) become a better self. So you have jujutsu vs judo, kenjutsu vs kendo, karatejutsu vs karatedo... The sword techniques taught in kenjutsu and kendo might be practically identical, but kenjustu sees them as the purpose (i.e. learn how to fight) while kendo sees them as the mean (e.g. learn how to improve). This is very simplistic, but just as an idea...

So one way to conceive the Fighter class could be (without any oriental flavor), someone who studies a "jutsu".

Just to point out: do vs jutsu it's just a matter of fashion. Old martial arts are named "jutsu". In the XIX century, it becomes a "new fashion" to build up new martial arts that simply removed the "martial" part of it. To use the name of a thread in this very same forum, "jutsu" is "combat as war", and "do" is "combat as a sport" Kenjutsu was, since XV century, the art to fight with a real sword against another real fighter that was trying to kill you. Kendo was the art to fight with a wooden bamboo shinai, which was developed MUCH later.
Same goes with Jujitsu, which is very ancient way to fight, including killing moves, compared to judo, which is a sport from late XIX century, Jigoro Kano invented it in 1882.

Bassically, most "justsu" martial arts become "do" sports in XIX, de-emphasizing the martial part of it to adapt them to a more modern idea. Iaijutsu became Iaido, Jujutsu left behind strikes and most killing moves and became Judo, Kenjutsu left behind real katanas and become Kendo. Kobujutsu left behind real weapons and became Kobudo. And so on.

There is not a single ancient martial art (by "ancient" I mean X to XVII centuries) that is named "do", but that has nothing to do with "being a way". Ninjas were "a way" more than any other martial artist, by your own definition, and they practice "ninjutsu", not "nin-do". Tai-jutsu, Dakentai-jutsu, iaijutsu, kenjutsu, all of them are from XV century. Kendo, Kobudo, Karatedo, Aikido, etc, all of them are from XIX century and beyond, and all of them are "combat is a sport" compared to the previous "fight for your life, winning is surviving because this is war" mentality