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

[Tehnai]

In my opinion, a fighter is Conan. Read the Conan stories and comics. That's what I want to see a fighter do.

The fighter is resourceful and clever. He's a predator on the battlefield. Outside of combat, he's probably a broken individual seeing the world as a new battle every day.

The fighter should dominate combat, with very few exception. Perhaps a barbarian would be one of those exceptions. Other classes should be able to shine in combat still, but under certain circumstances. For example, a rogue would shine in a surprise situation.

If characters are balanced in between combat, skill and social spheres, fighter should look a little bit like this:

Fighter
Combat - 80%
Exploration - 10%
Social - 10%

As opposed to say...

Wizard
Combat - 60
Exploration - 30
Social - 10

 

[Toriel]

I voted none of the above for the following reasons:
For me, a fighter should be able to pick up any weapon and be able to use them effectively but they should also be able to specialize in one or two areas if they want to. I also think that they should be there to protect their companions but not necessarily only by melee.

 

[Nagol]

I thought in earlier editions of D&D, the tactic was almost always to concentrate on the wizard (or spellcasting bad guy), the guy who can blow you up with a thought, and the fighter (or ogre) was just the meatshield in the way.

I can't imagine a party (or group of bad guys run by the DM) in earlier editions automatically playing the way you suggest, where they concentrate on the meat shields exclusively "because they'll stomp you," ignoring the spellcasters at the back.

And if your fighter is just as deadly and threatening as your wizard, and less squishy (more hit points, better AC), then why do you need the wizard anyhow?

In my opinion, a marking mechanic does well to mechanically enforce the tropes of the genre: the meat shield defends the softer members of the party.

In my core-only 3.X campaign, the 16th dwarf fighter/dwarven defender was regularly hitting for 40-60 points of damage 1-3 times a round, every round. Neither of the arcane casters had anything like that damage output. The fighter/cleric a level lower was almost the same damage output, but he could occasionally spike higher with clerical spell augmentation. They were competing to see who could do the most damage in a round or with a single blow (I think 168 hp on a critical was the best they managed).

When the group wanted something dead, the fighters were the ones who killed it.

As for why keep the casters around: three reasons -- to buff the fighters, for versatility, and comfort (Magnificent Mansion, Greater Teleport, Plane Shift, various detects, and environmental control spells).

 

[Dragonblade]

I don't know anything about the 3.x Warblade. Can you give me a rundown on how it works?

Tome of Battle was released by WotC around 2005. It recognized that melee characters were weaker than casters at higher levels, and sought to address that. It also appealed to a large subset of players who wanted to play melee characters that could do cool maneuvers in battle instead of just spamming attacks every round or playing as sidekicks to the casters.

The book had 3 classes that WotC used as a sort of pre-4e experiment in alternative mechanics. The Sword Sage, the Warblade, and the Crusader. The book contained a variety of different maneuvers organized into different disciplines that were effectively balanced and organized like 3e spells. For example, maneuvers went from level 1 to 9, and the disciplines they were sorted into, were analogous to schools of magic.

However, unlike wizards the refresh mechanic was not daily, but encounter based and varied depending on which of the three new classes you played. Other non-ToB classes could also learn these new maneuvers via multi-classing or by spending feats.

The Sword Sage could spend a round and recover one power. The Warblade could spend a full action and recover all powers. The crusader's powers refreshed randomly. Each discipline had a different focus. Some were overtly supernatural in nature. The Sword Sage and Crusader got access to the more supernatural over the top powers, while the Warblade was more strictly martial in nature.

Some maneuvers could let your attack do fire damage, or bypass DR, or roll multiple d6's for damage instead of rolling normal weapon damage. Others were more utility based, providing bonus movement, or special tricks like use your Concentration skill roll in lieu of a will save. Or shake off one condition effecting you. Some were proto-Warlord, granting bonuses to allies that followed your lead.

Its pretty much my favorite 3e book of all time hands down and I will never play in a 3e or Pathfinder game where I can't use it. It made martial characters in 3e not only worth playing, but actually fun to play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 4E fighter was probably the biggest source of disappointment to some of my players. The reason being is that 4E made the fighter into something we didn't want. I LOVED the 3E fighter. Compared to the fighter of previous editions, he was exciting. He was customizable and could support a wide range of options; in our game that ran for 8 years (from 1st to 30th) we had three fighters in the group: an archer who eventually became an Arcane Archer (and then a custom class), an archer who became a Deepwood Sniper and a sword-and-board tank.

I was delighted with the 3.0 fighter, myself. I played one for the full run of the game, in a campaign with (at times) two other fighters. One quickly MCd to Cleric, and one came into the campaign in 3.5 (a dedicated archer). My fighter was a mixed 'tactical reach' build using a pole-arm, combat reflexes, spring attack, expertise, power attack, quickdraw and a range of weapons to maximize his flexibility. He was the party's 'battle leader,' and tried very hard to manuever to limit enemy options, protect his buddies and give them bonuses. He could just barely do those things, in maybe one fight out of three, because the rest of the time the sorcerer or full-caster cleric would just end the battle early with an SoD.

4E could not accommodate those concepts.

The fighter is more focused in 4e, it's also a lot more effective at what it does. No 3.x fighter could begin to compare to it for round-to-round versatility or peak power (where fighters had always lagged casters by such vast degrees that was like they weren't even playing the same game), nor for effectiveness in the fighter's iconic role (protecting the other members of his party as a front-liner). The fighter couldn't be an archer, and was limitted (heavy thrown weapons, few or no powers) in ranged combat, but as the classic 'tank' the class had been since 0D&D, it did everything it needed to (and couldn't before), and more. OTOH, the fighter didn't need to be a great archer, because the ranger was now a 100% martial class capable of being a great archer and skirmisher. The fighter didn't need to be a full-bab 'duelist' style light-armor 'fast' fighter, because the Rogue was now up to modeling that sort of purely-martial character. The fighter didn't need to grope and stretch at it's traditional, never-supported, 'leader' role, because the martial source now had the Warlord.

4e was like a renaisance for the martial source. Where, before, the fighter stood virtualy alone in modeling martial archetypes, it finally had help, and could specialize on it's *ahem* 'core competencies.' Where before casters dominated, martial characters were now broadly competative (though casters still had much greater breadth and variety in their abilities, at least in general power and resources there was finaly a rough parity).

 

[Remathilis]

I think the biggest thing fighters and rogues needed to remain viable was a nerf to wizards, clerics and druids. Specifically, removing the save or die spells and keeping a tighter check on buffing magic. Clearer rules on maneuvers, and a better stunting/freeflow mechanic would've been nice too, as would not having so many good ideas locked behind feats (or chains of feats).

 

[ExploderWizard]

The idea of the fighter as the "tank," fending off attacks against the wizard (or cleric or rogue or whoever), originated at the tabletop, not "in pixel land."

Anyone insisting that "ZOMG TEH VIDEO GAMEZ!" are driving a mechanic really needs to explain what video game uses that mechanic, e.g., a mark. Truth is, there's not anything even remotely like the 4th edition "mark" in video games.

Anyone insisting that tanking makes any sense at all needs to find a military unit in which it is one dedicated guy's job to get shot.

 

[Dragonblade]

Anyone insisting that tanking makes any sense at all needs to find a military unit in which it is one dedicated guy's job to get shot.

Leaving aside the strawman nature of your argument (quasi-medieval fantasy with swords vs. modern combat with guns), I'll bite. Ever heard of suppressive or cover fire?

It exactly simulates marking. You open fire on the enemy, or present a threat to open fire, specifically to prevent them from attacking something else.

If they try to ignore that threat to take aim at something else, well then they are going to get shot, or at least have a penalty to aim since bullets will be flying past them. Sounds exactly like 4e marking to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay the point of this edition is unity.
So the fighter has to be one that always players to make the character they want while still making it good.

I see the keys to this in theses aspects: Access to Weapon Styles, Access to weapons, Strength of Defenses, Strength of special attacks

Access to Weapon Styles
We seem to want the fighter to be able to be able to fight with one handed weapons, with a weapon and shield, with two handed weapon, unarmed, with projectile weapons, and with thrown weapons.

Solution. Giving the fighter an attack bonus on top of the normal warrior bonus that rangers, paladin, etc get to make up for the styles the fight doesn't focus one.

The attacks of a +3 primary ability +2 secondary ability first level character of several classes might look like

Fighter
Longsword +8 (+3Str +2 proficiency +3 fighter)
Longbow +7 (+2Dex +2 proficiency +3 fighter)
Unarmed +6 (+3Str +3 fighter)

Barbarian
Longsword +5 (+3Str +2 proficiency)
Rage Longsword +7 (+3Str +2 proficiency +2 Rage)
Longbow +4 (+2Dex +2 proficiency)
Unarmed +3 (+3Str)
Rage Unarmed +5 (+3Str +2 Rage)

Paladin
Longsword +5 (+3Str +2 proficiency)
Smite Longsword +7 (+3Str +2 Cha +2 proficiency)
Longbow +2 (+2 proficiency)
Unarmed +3 (+3Str)

Cleric
Longsword +4 (+2Str +2 proficiency)
Longbow +2 (+2 proficiency)
Unarmed +2 (+2Str)
(as long as the cleric's spells bonus is close to the fighter's bonus then it is okay)

Access to Weapons and Strength of Defenses
This is easy. Just give the fighter proficiency with everything non exotic. Then exclude at least one thing form every other class.

Strength of special attacks
Here is the meat. Tripping. Grappling/Grabbing. Feints and bull rushes. Two weapon fighting. Mounted fighting.

Make doing them untrained hard and with a huge drawbacks. Provoke Opportunity attacks. No damage. Massive attack penalties. Make sure the drawbacks are near impossible to get around without training.

Then give the fighter training with them all.

Tada!
Tank fighter
Offensive damage fighter
Archer fighter
Finesse fighter
Light armor fighter

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, I've got Martial Power and Martial Power 2. I've also got HoFL and HoFK. And while I concede (nominally) that it makes the archer warlord a semi-viable build, exactly what version of which fighter build can use a bow? Because I sure as hell couldn't find it.

They can all use the bow. But the one you want is the Slayer. The one which has Dexterity as its second major stat and does additional damage based on dexterity. Technically an optimised archery slayer does about as much damage as an optimised melee one because they can start with a Dex of 20 and count it twice (or one and a half times in melee with melee training). That's even without the power strike.

As for rangers that are "equally viable" with bow and blade? I'd be interested in seeing that. Which hunter build? Are we talking the Martial Power 2 one?

Yes. The one based on the PHB chassis, that has a fast weapon swap mechanic, a decent opportunity attack based on dexterity, and is intended to swap between the two. (Now if only Twin Strike weren't so overwhelming).

It seems to me that while 4e has broadened the options to include multiple weapon choices (I can make a melee ranger, a throw and stab ranger, or an archer ranger), it's still pretty obvious that trying to be versatile (I want to be an archer ranger sometimes AND a melee ranger at others) is rather obviously sub-optimal.

Which is the whole reason they created the Hunter in Martial Power 2...

There's a simple fix that would make the fighter just as effective an attack draw without the need for fiddly mechanics like marking.

The fighter should:
- be hard to hit (high AC)
- be tough (lots of hit points)
- hit frequently
- do lots of damage when he does hit
- be able to take out multiple weak foes with ease

Make all that true, and the bad guys HAVE to concentrate their attacks on the fighter because if they ignore the fighter, he'll cut them to ribbons.

Simple. Easy.

Simple. Easy. And wrong. Because behind the fighter stands the mage. Who is easy to hit. Not very tough. And can blanket the battlefield with spells, turning everyone into a punchbag. So either you can hit the fighter and maybe take half his hit points. Or you can hit the mage more reliably and turn him into strawberry jam. Anyone in their senses is going to defeeat in detail, starting with the glass canon and leaving the tough guy for last.

My 3e PHB allowed most of those options out the gate, not waiting for sourcebook X so my rogue can use his freakin' bow again beyond "basic attack". The problem was too many powers dictated how you fought, so PCs picked the best weapon they could use with they're powers and spammed accordingly.

4e had to grow; the PHB was crippleware.

4e was limited in the box. But worked. My 3e PHB on the other hand contained both the Monk and the Druid.

Anyone insisting that tanking makes any sense at all needs to find a military unit in which it is one dedicated guy's job to get shot.

Anyone insisting that D&D unit tactics resemble modern unit tactics is completely out of genre. Think Roman tactics with the Legions as the Tanks. Or one of the specialised pike units that has people carrying large shields at the front. Or 100 years war English Longbowmen and Billmen blocks with the Billmen to keep the enemy away from the Longbows - or the later Pike and Musket situations. Or indeed a bodyguard situation.

There's no designated person to get shot in part becaus modern warfare allows anyone to attack anyone they can see. But this is not a historical pattern.