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

[Consonant Dude]

First of all, the whole notion of a newbie class needs to die in a fire. If 5e core meets the designers goals then any class should be equally sufficient as a newbie class. I don't want to see the 5e fighter forced into that role.

I'm ambivalent on this. And not just because of the newbie thing. There is something to be said about the ease of creating a 12th level fighter in 5 minutes which you just can't do with a wizard without sucking all the flavor out of the class.

I think the game needs a few straightforward classes and the fighting guy is an obvious choice. It made sense in old school DnD. It's attractive for newbies, it helps the DM create many NPCs quicker and finally it allows someone to jump in a game of any level in 5 minutes.

I hope all the classes will be as simple as possible but I'm skeptic it can be pulled off equally well for all of them.

 

[Deadboy]

True but the comment above gives the impression that marking is somehow quasi-realistic.

Opportunity attacks and such things don't make as much sense in an abstract combat system with somewhat long combat rounds. D&D combat isn't designed at its roots (static defenses, piles of hp) to be all that simulationist.

Dealing in all that detail yet not bothering to consider facing (locked in combat with a deadly foe then turning around to smack someone who runs past you doesn't give your original foe an opening?) isn't very consistent in applying principles.

Detail is fine when it's flavorful, thematic and easy to determine. Facing is difficult because you have to mark all your minis, or pogs, or have an idea in your minds eye of where a character is facing, and then you have to determine how that actually applies to the battlefield. Determining whether a foe is or isn't in a character's field of vision from 30 feet away is SURE to lead to arguments between player and DM, gridmap or not.

Marking, on the other hand, if flavorful and thematic for the fighter. It's the fighter, through his actions, saying "you're my target; I DARE you to ignore me." It's fun, it allows the fighter to protect the squishies, and it significantly increases damage output if the monster ignores the mark.

D&D is an abstract, non-simulationist system, true, but picking the level of abstraction is important - and making sure where you draw the line is fun and thematic for the character type is important. Thus why marking is a good thing to add and facing is not.

I never understand why people are so against marking. It lets a tank be a tank and at no point is it unrealistic or breaking of verisimilitude. Half the time it seems to me like the actual argument against marks is "because its from 4e and 4e is bad."

This line of conversation reminds me of a post I saw not too long ago from someone either here or on rpg.net that explained marks using pictures from Basketball and another with a mother polar bear standing defensively over a baby polar bear that said something like, "go ahead and attack the baby bear. Guess what will happen." Maybe someone will post it, because really, its the best justification for marks I've seen.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I never understand why people are so against marking. It lets a tank be a tank and at no point is it unrealistic or breaking of verisimilitude. Half the time it seems to me like the actual argument against marks is "because its from 4e and 4e is bad."

It isn't 4E per say. It is the concept of someone's "job" being to get hit thats the problem.

In short "tanking" needs to remain in pixel land and stay the hell out of tabletop play.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm ambivalent on this. And not just because of the newbie thing. There is something to be said about the ease of creating a 12th level fighter in 5 minutes which you just can't do with a wizard without sucking all the flavor out of the class.

I think it is fine that by default fighter is simple and wizard complex. Give options to make the fighter complex and advanced players should be happy. I agree that having the wizard also be simple by default would be a bad idea. There are other classes that use simple casting mechanics.

 

[JonWake]

I was thinking of it as a 'block' mechanism. Could have been worded better. And it should probably be based on your Melee attack with a bonus for the shield used, to make it different from just your AC. I'm a fan of informal definitions.

I just realized that it also makes shield walls terribly effective. If you have four shield bearers with axes, you have a terrifying press. A group of hoplites with shield and spears makes charging into their ranks a daunting challenge. Form a square and you could hold off an orc horde with some grit and luck. A group of legionairres with scutum and gladius could alternate between defensive and offensive tactics, massacring waves of enemies.

The tactics and roles arise organically that way.

 

[dkyle]

That might work for Fighter marks, but how does getting in someone's face override a god watching and punishing them for not engaging the paladin?

The god's sense of fair play? The ability is Divine Challenge, which implies a sense of honorable combat inherent to it.

And that's assuming that a god is literally watching the fight, ready to smite the opponent for being naughty (but only a very specific kind of naughty). Which seems kind of silly to me.

It's Divine Magic. That doesn't mean the god is directly involved. And, well, Magic is Magic. What explanation is really needed? Maybe the Magic does involve a need to keep the attention of the marked target. In fact, the rules text actually reinforces this interpretation, thanks to the requirement to remain engaged, and the heavy penalty for failing to do so.

 

[paladinm]

I'll be happy to have a D&D that's not so bound to minis and maps!

You know in OD&D (the Brown Box), there was no Thief/Rogue class. Should the Rogue/ set of classes be subsumed into the Fighter (again)? What difference is there between a stealthy, lightly-armored fighter and a brawny thief? Especially since they have the same "power source"..

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm ambivalent on this. And not just because of the newbie thing. There is something to be said about the ease of creating a 12th level fighter in 5 minutes which you just can't do with a wizard without sucking all the flavor out of the class.

I think the game needs a few straightforward classes and the fighting guy is an obvious choice. It made sense in old school DnD. It's attractive for newbies, it helps the DM create many NPCs quicker and finally it allows someone to jump in a game of any level in 5 minutes.

Well newbie class means start at 1st level. All classes should have comparable complexity (or simplicity if you will) at level 1. Newbies shouldn't be starting at 12th level and if they are then they just need to deal with the complexity that comes with being 12th level. Trying to accomodate that rare corner case by oversimplifying design isn't fair to advanced players who want more to their fighter than spamming a basic melee attack every round.

Also, classes should be designed solely with players in mind, not NPCs. They should have separate rules for NPC builds. As a player, I want options and complexity to fine tune exactly the class I want to play.

As a DM I just want stats, some combat abilities, and a name. I don't want to build my NPC using the player classes. And as a player I don't want options stripped from a class just to accomodate DMs.

Should a DM be able to build NPCs using player classes? Sure, but that should be a secondary consideration when designing a rich class with diverse abilities that a player can customize and tweak to make the character they want.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well newbie class means start at 1st level. All classes should have comparable complexity (or simplicity if you will) at level 1. Newbies shouldn't be starting at 12th level and if they are then they just need to deal with the complexity that comes with being 12th level.

I'm more sympathetic to this position than the one you are disputing, but I disagree with both the "all classes" part above and the thing about no newbies starting at 12th level.

I think there should be a wide range of relatively simple classes that cover major archetypes, and stay simple throughout all the levels. And then there should be an equally wide range of complex classes that cover major archetypes, and get as complex as the designers think the audience will appreciate.

My experience with players over about the age of 25 is that, largely unlike the younger audience, that if they want simple at 1st level, they want simple at 15th. Ditto for complex. And their time is precious enough now that they don't want the game hooking increased power level to increased complexity any more than is absolutely necessary to make it work. They get enough of that in their real lives.

 

[Dragonblade]

It isn't 4E per say. It is the concept of someone's "job" being to get hit thats the problem.

In short "tanking" needs to remain in pixel land and stay the hell out of tabletop play.

Fighters have tanked in all editions of play. But prior to 4e there was no mechanics around it. It was purely DM fiat whether a monster would stop going after the squishy wizard and focus on the fighter.

As a DM this was unsatisfying to me. I had to metagame the monster's reaction to the fighter and his attempt to tank. In 4e, I didn't have to deal with that anymore. I just play the monsters however I want and mechanics take care of themselves. I find it liberating.