D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - The Fighter

[Astrosicebear]

The blog today is all about the fighter, what it is to be a fighter, what it means, and what speaks to it intrinsically and mechanically.

Fighter A-Go-Go

 

[Sunseeker]

Hmmm, biggest problem with voting is that I don't really feel all of those options are mutually exclusive.

Fighters IMO should be highly customizable, but they are first and foremost, melee characters. While they can use ranged weapons, that is not their specialty, and I don't mind the ability to choose to be defined by my weapon choice.

In the end I had to vote for "accomate all styles", because really I want a highly versatile fighter with few limitations on style/theme/play.

 

[Cadfan]

His polls hurt my brain.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find myself looking back to the 3rd Edition fighter with a great deal of fondness. I liked how a player could customize the fighter in any way he or she wanted. All the decision points helped fighters grow in an organic fashion, evolving through game play to match the player expectations. As well, a player who wanted to be a damn good archer could just go to the fighter without having to embrace the ranger’s narrative (and attendant features). Likewise, if I wanted to make a tough knight, I didn’t have to look to the paladin to fill that need (although, I know the Player’s Handbook 2 from 3rd Edition did have a knight class).

I find it interesting that he's being so positive about the 3e fighter, given how strongly the 4e crowd seems to dislike everything about the 3e fighter.

Hopefully, they'll find a way to make it customizable but given it a little more "special-ness" than just bonus feats.

 

[avin]

That was an easy one.

FIGHTERS should accommodate any style of fighting.

 

[Andor]

The blog today is all about the fighter, what it is to be a fighter, what it means, and what speaks to it intrinsically and mechanically.

Fighter A-Go-Go

Doesn't say much, beyond observing that the fighter has long been tied to a particular weapon choice.

I'll disagree about 4e being more limiting in weapon choice than 3e though. (And I say this as a 3e fan.) Frankly the weapon specific benefits in 4e didn't impress me that much, and they are only present at a few levels.

In 3e on the other hand, feat selection would gradually tie you closer and closer to a single optimized weapon style. Focus, specialization, style feats, weapon mastery, etc, all meant that you were much, much more effective with the right sword in your hand than you were with a mace or kama.

And of course in earlier editions fighter style specializations would tie you to specific weapons just as strongly by giving you extra attacks, which you had to be crazy to give up.

Anywho my personal preference would be to reduce the focus on specific weapons a bit and make that one of a few options.

The fighter should be tough, skilled with all "martial" kit, and the best guy in a fight, if the barbarian isn't raging.

 

[Tehnai]

In my world, the fighter is the guy who can kill you with anything with or without a pointy end.

A sword, a spear, a mace, a bow, a chair.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While it may not be the whole point of the blog, it does present a veritable Straw Man of the 4e fighter.

It points out that the 4e fighter is a defender and (like most defenders) melee-focused. It makes it sound like that's the only thing 4e did with the fighter, force it into a Role (like very other 4e class).

A much more momentous thing happened to the fighter in 4e. It stopped sucking. It became the equal of other classes. It was as good (at least) a defender as the Paladin or Swordmage. It was on the same playing field as casters, able to bring some round-by-round versatility in combat, and some peak-power when really needed. Able to 'nova' in those benighted 5-minute workdays. That balance and near-parity was something the fighter never had before. Never.

And it's not even acknowledged, let alone valued.

 

[avin]

I have no interest in being pigeonholed to a Defender.

But I welcome 4E's Fighter balance.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I too want a highly versatile fighter, but what I want more out of this edition is the ability for a fighter to use any weapon (or at least a group of weapons, sword/axe/hammer) without penalty. I want my 5E fighter to be able to use a greatsword, but when a really cool axe drops, I dont feel its wasted because I'm at some penalty to use it. I want to be able to use it, even if i cant use my 'sword' training with it.

I want the 5E fighter to get lots of customization through choices, but I dont want the class to be like 3E (bonus feat, bonus feat, 1 ability). I also dont think the 3e ranger 'styles' are a good way to go either.

I would prefer something like this:

Fighter
Hit Die - best (d10/12)[could save d12 solely for barb]
Class bonus +1 STR at lvl 1, 8, 16.
Class skills: whatever goes here (athletics, intimidate, etc)
Class features:

Weapon training: 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th (gain familiarity with a chosen weapon group, axes, swords, etc.)

Fighter manuevers: 1st and every other level gain XXX maneuver, or bonus feat (whichever you prefer).

Sub theme: Upon reaching 5th, 10th, or 15th level a fighter may take a subtheme if desired (think kits/prestiges)

Core abilities: 1st, 6th, 12th, 18th: Gain an ability (say 1 of 3 options at each tier that are core to all fighters. Abilities normally on par with class abilities, more powerful and broader than feats.)

 

[Tallifer]

Some of these designers have an awfully distorted and negative view of the Fourth Edition. But this writer contradicts his negative comparison of 4e with his own facts:

"In 4th Edition, the fighter’s focus shifted from total customization and instead grounded the fighter into a particular niche—a role that would continue until the slayer came along in the Essentials products. Again, the class focused on weapons, distinguishing them into two broad groups: two-handed weapons and sword-and-board. Later supplements expanded the fighter builds to allow berserkers (battleragers), two-weapon wielders (tempests), brawlers, and so on."

So he says Fighters were limited and then lists six very different builds. What he also does not realize is that those Fighter builds which have decent dexterity are as good an archer as any Fighter from a previous edition. And in fact the designers made magical throwing weapons very useful, so that every strong character had a good ranged weapon.

 

[paladinm]

Very well said, sir!

4e's "powers" system was an effort to even the playing field at all levels, and to give fighters (especially) something cool to do to keep up with the casters. I personally prefer allowing fighters (pure fighters, not paladins, etc.) the use of "feats" (maybe they should be called tactics?) These would be things that Only fighters could do, due to their extreme focus and training with a particular weapon (or group of weapons). This could be similar to 1e Unearthed Arcana's original concept of weapon mastery, which was only available to fighters (or cavaliers.. a whole nother story), unless you still want to give Rangers the 2-weapon fighting thing.

 

[DonAdam]

The thing that worries me about the 3e talk is that level by level customization usually meant +1 to this, +2 to that, +1 to the other thing, etc.

I really hope they make the baseline fighter have broadly applicable bonuses which can be given up for maneuvers or situation-specific bonuses. And by situation-specific, I absolutely don't mean weapon-specific, which is functionally equivalent to just giving bigger bonuses all the time.

 

[Sirot]

I miss not being able to make a kobold spear fighter or rogue without creating a god awful character.

 

[marleykat]

As I said at TBP I'm glad I have no dog in this hunt, but if pushed I think they should kill the Warlord take his stuff and give it to the Fighter. Also give him some skills outside direct physical stuff with more than 2 skill points a level for christsake!

I voted "Other" the choices presented were too narrow for how I envision a "Fighting Man".

 

[Serendipity]

A fighter should be the definitively best option in the game for combat, period. I mean, it's in their name. Melee, whatever. I can see a kit type system for fighters who want to be able to specialize (which I am not, and I love playing fighters) while not gimping all around, "combat is my business, business is good." fighters.

Also, I want to know what process they use to make those polls as unintuitive and useless as possible.

 

[Minigiant]

I want a versatile fighter. A fighter able to do every related to normal weapons combat.

But I do want some sort of unique feature that puts fighters at the top of the combat pyramid.

Just give the fighters a strong and unique class feature and sole access to an aspect of the combat world.

 

[Raith5]

Some of these designers have an awfully distorted and negative view of the Fourth Edition. But this writer contradicts his negative comparison of 4e with his own facts:

"In 4th Edition, the fighter’s focus shifted from total customization and instead grounded the fighter into a particular niche—a role that would continue until the slayer came along in the Essentials products. Again, the class focused on weapons, distinguishing them into two broad groups: two-handed weapons and sword-and-board. Later supplements expanded the fighter builds to allow berserkers (battleragers), two-weapon wielders (tempests), brawlers, and so on."

So he says Fighters were limited and then lists six very different builds. What he also does not realize is that those Fighter builds which have decent dexterity are as good an archer as any Fighter from a previous edition. And in fact the designers made magical throwing weapons very useful, so that every strong character had a good ranged weapon.

Agree with the idea that fighters should encompass and wide variety of styles of fighting, but weapons should play a key role in defining how he goes about fighting.

But I agree with Tallifer that this view about 4thed fighters is just completely and utterly messed up. The Dwarf Halberd fighter in my party is a a good defender, but can also also throw out stroker level damage with some of his powers and have some control powers with the reach of his weapon.

The level of customization in 4th ed was better because it was more than cosmetic, the powers enabled the fighter to really important things on the battle field that beyond beyond defending.

 

[BobTheNob]

I want to see the end of fighters needing to be "built" (i.e. pick these weapon talents and these feats). I want the fighter to be about versatility.

The ability to change it up in a fight and adapt. If an axe is the weapon to use, I want to see him pull out an axe, not say "Nah, I will just keep using my 2-handed sword, cause thats what all my feats are in". If the time has come to hold an enemy at bay (i.e. tank) take out your shield, not "Im all trained up in two handed weapons, so I wont pull out my shield".

However this is achieved, I want the fighter to be able to react in combat according to conditions rather than decisions he made when leveling up.

Now THATS a fighter I would want to play

 

[Sirot]

I would prefer that all the capabilities of the fighter were generalized and not tied to a certain weapon. A fighter should be equally capable with using a two-handed sword as he is with a axe and shield or with a bow. Maybe allow the fighter to focus in some areas in very broad strokes that are not weapon specific as much (e.g. charging attacks, impending movement, face punching).

I feel like weapon specialization should be the avenue of the other classes. You have rangers, rogues, barbarians who traditionally have certain weapons they prefer.