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

[Crazy Jerome]

I have little to add to dkyle's response, but must spread XP. He is especially on with his comments on HP and AC.

 

[Shroomy]

He was complaining about weapon choice also. But yes, I also vehemently disagree with him if he is indeed criticizing Roles: a Fighter should usually be the one to protect the weaker party members just like he did since OD&D. The Slayer is an interesting off-shoot, but fortunately the Fourth Edition clearly labels him as a striker lest his teammates be disappointed by his lack of mutual defense.

But he's also largely right about weapon choice in 4e, between fighting styles, feats, enhancement bonuses, power riders, and superior weapons you're locked into a particular weapon (or small group of weapons) pretty quickly if you want to keep up.

 

[mudbunny]

What's dangerous about the 3.X fighter is that although it looks like a simple class to play, I am hard-pressed to find another class where:
1 - to effectively do some things (disarm, trip, grapple, etc), you need to take a very precise chain of feats;
2 - There are more feats that look like they would be useful for the class, but are actually traps that are solely there to punish a lack of system mastery.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I am against 'mark' being added to core... let it be part of the tactical ruleset. I think fighters can greatly benefit from this ability, but replace it in core with something as simple as this in the DMG "Monsters and NPCs are more likely to attack characters in metal armor than those in leather or cloth. Very intelligent NPCs or monsters may do exactly the opposite."

 

[DEFCON 1]

The big stumbling block here is that "Fighter" *is* too broad of a concept. And I think the designers realized it in 4E, which is why they tried to change how we looked at it by getting us to think of class names in a different way.

What most people seem to want to call "fighter"... they called it "Martial class". If you were a Martial Class... you were a warrior. You fought. Your primary focus was weapon combat. You were a MARTIAL character. And within that sphere (or power source if you prefer)... you had all these subclasses. If you were heavily armored, you were a "Fighter". If you were lightly armored and used light, swashbuckling weapons, you were a "Rogue". If you used two weapons or used ranged weapons, you were a "Ranger". If your focus was military tactics or inspiration, you were a "Warlord".

So the whole point of it was to eliminate the idea of class NAME trumping class ABILITY. If you wanted to use the bow and arrow, you chose the Ranger, because it was the ranged component of the Martial source.

However, we've discovered that too many players just weren't willing to make that change. They wanted to play FIGHTERS. They weren't willing to play a "Martial class". Ranger was never going to be equivalent to Ranged Fighter to them, even though that's what the game tried to get them to see.

So where does that leave us? Well, personally... I think this is exactly where the introduction of Themes can come into play... because we can basically RECREATE everything about 4E martial combat, while maintaining the classic NAMES of things that everybody got so hung up on.

So instead of using "Martial power", we can now identify this overriding combat source as "Fighter". And instead of calling the individual facets of the Martial source Fighter, or Rogue, or Ranger, or Warlord, or Berserker, or Tempest, or Pugilist... you now just make THEMES that cover the exact same ground. You're a Fighter with an Archer theme. Or a Fighter with a Swashbuckler theme. Or a Fighter with a Paladin theme. Or a Fighter with a Barbarian theme. Or a Fighter with an Unarmed theme. Or a Fighter with a Warlord theme. You basically have everything 4E did... but just keep the names that everyone seems to want.

 

[CM]

I wouldn't use Aggro in 5E...

Don't think of it as aggro, think of it as you diving in the path of the attack. I'm certain 3e had prestige classes that did this, and 4e has powers which do the same.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm all for giving fighters some variety in their role options. Perhaps have them function somewhat like 4E berserkers, but with a "classic" 4E fighter mark, and let people focus on one aspect or the other as it suits them.

I'd like for each weapon type to have something it is best for, and for fighters to be able to bring out the best in weapons. If heavy blades are better for OAs, and spears are better for setting against a charge, a fighter has a reason to have both, even if they focus on one over the other. The main historical flaws of the fighter are that they had to focus on a single weapon, and in doing so were foolish to use any other weapon. Magic items make this even worse, and it's one of the major reasons I despise +X items.

As for ranged fighters... in 4E fighters are terrible with bows and the like, sure, but heavy thrown weapons are fine for them, and while they could use a ranged-friendly marking trick (+Wis damage to next attack against an enemy that violates a mark?), -2 to hit is still -2 to hit. A fighter's mark is never entirely useless except against auto-damage.

 

[avin]

Don't think of it as aggro, think of it as you diving in the path of the attack. I'm certain 3e had prestige classes that did this, and 4e has powers which do the same.

I could be behind blocking.

 

[Cadfan]

Yeah the Mark mechanic is much better than Aggro, since it allows the DM or player a choice still. You want to avoid mind control with a martial class.

Depends how you flavor it.

"Once per round, you may intercept an attack an enemy has aimed at an ally next to you. The enemy makes the attack against you instead of your ally."

Now its not mind control. Its you shouldering your way in between the monster and your friend. But mechanically its the same thing. The enemy wanted to attack Joe, but instead it attacked Steve.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm disappointed - apparently that article was by Robert Schwalb. And I thought he at least knew 4e.

The fact that just about every 4e weapon-using class had to pick a single weapon and stick with it is pretty telling that something was awry with the system. Wizard didn't have to choose between cold and fire spells!

Not my experience. With the exception of Weapon Focus there's no real need to specialise - although there are benefits if you choose to do so and pay the opportunity cost.

To clarify. In one of my current games I have a Bard - a Rohirrim Skald. He variously uses a longsword, javelins from horseback, a shortbow (for the Parthian Shot),a lance from horseback, and sometimes a dagger. Last combat the only one he didn't use was the bow - because it wasn't right for the job. Alongside the bard, the party fighter carries a waraxe, a few throwing axes, and a crossbow. He uses them all depending on the situation. And the warlord in the game I'm running two nights ago changed from bow to javelin as the combat got nearer. He too has Master at Arms. I also play in a Dark Sun game which had an Arena Fighter with a Ki Focus (RIP). Choice of weapons included tables, chairs, a bush ripped from the ground, the severed arm of an enemy, and sometimes (but only sometimes) his sword.

This is entirely supported within the rules. Of course it locks you out of feats like Headsman's Chop.

That said, I rarely see a 4E fighter use a ranged weapon, which kind of makes me sad.

I rarely see them use one because it's better to be up close and personal. But I rarely see them not carry them for when they are the best tool for the job.

Well, in trying to define classes by role, the 4e designers did a lot of "excluding of options" so that your class would always be in its role. Since fighters were supposed to wade into melee and draw attacks to themselves, they simply couldn't be given the option of using bows. It would have violated concept.

Except IME most fighters do carry bows or javelins.

Similarly, the ranger was supposed to be EITHER a two-weapon fighter or an archer. Doing both was just sub-optimal.

Tell it to the throw-and-stab monkeys. Or the hunters with fullblades and executioner's axes.

In other words, 4e's power system pigenholed every character into basically using one weapon for his whole career.

My first ever character was a bard. Trying to juggle wand and longsword - and ending up with a magic shortsword that was intended to go to someone else.

I was wrong, because as many have said, I was forced into a role, and forced into it hard. I wanted a spear to begin with, because spears are cool, but that meant being dextrous and having a lower AC (which later, paradoxically, turns out to be more useful when you are marking). So I went for sword-and-board instead, which meant I was never dealing significant damage.

Well built sword and board doesn't do that low damage.

Following up on another thread - perhaps Fighters are the only ones who should get real opportunity attacks?

Fighters get better opportunity attacks than anyone else. But I think you're looking for the Knight - who uses Battle Guardian as an opportunity not an interrupt.

The big stumbling block here is that "Fighter" *is* too broad of a concept. And I think the designers realized it in 4E, which is why they tried to change how we looked at it by getting us to think of class names in a different way.

Honestly, I think this applies far more to wizard than fighter.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Depends how you flavor it.

"Once per round, you may intercept an attack an enemy has aimed at an ally next to you. The enemy makes the attack against you instead of your ally."

Now its not mind control. Its you shouldering your way in between the monster and your friend. But mechanically its the same thing. The enemy wanted to attack Joe, but instead it attacked Steve.

This is awesome, but it is not the same thing as a mark. Imposing yourself as a shield for an ally is not the same thing as giving the bad guy an evil eye that just makes it slightly harder to attack someone else.

In this instance, the enemy does whatever it was planning to do and YOU the fighter, make the defense happen.

This kind of blocking as a theme specialty for defender/protector types I can fully support.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is awesome, but it is not the same thing as a mark. Imposing yourself as a shield for an ally is not the same thing as giving the bad guy an evil eye that just makes it slightly harder to attack someone else.

In this instance, the enemy does whatever it was planning to do and YOU the fighter, make the defense happen.

This kind of blocking as a theme specialty for defender/protector types I can fully support.

Honestly I prefer the 4e version - you get in their space so you can smack them with your sword if they attack someone else. You the fighter make the hit happen. (It's clearer, admittedly, with Defender Aura). Marking is more akin to marking in basketball or football than a condition you impose.

 

[Dragonblade]

This DnDN blog post is just ridiculous. It tells me the designers know nothing about how to make a good fighter.

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.

Also, and this is a side rant, but the whole grapple, sunder, disarm, trip BS needs to go. These were introduced in 3e and were some of the most abused, and cheesed mechanics in the game. No edition of D&D before, or after wanted anything to do with them, and I don't see want to see them back in 5e except as maybe very rare specialized maneuvers at the end of a very long feat/power chain.

Finally, the original 3e fighter is a joke. There is nothing about that class that I want to see in a 5e fighter. Their so-called customization options required them to be a one trick combat pony to effective. And all they could do was spam their one trick repeatedly.

The Tome of Battle Warblade was what the 3e fighter should have been. The Warblade and the Pathfinder fighter, especially the entire section on variant fighters in Advanded Player's Guide, should serve as the basis of design for the 5e fighter.

 

[Remathilis]

What's dangerous about the 3.X fighter is that although it looks like a simple class to play, I am hard-pressed to find another class where:
1 - to effectively do some things (disarm, trip, grapple, etc), you need to take a very precise chain of feats;
2 - There are more feats that look like they would be useful for the class, but are actually traps that are solely there to punish a lack of system mastery.

The problem with feats was that it cost too much to take. Great cleave was 3 feats, precise shot was 2, spring attack was 3, most of them low-power. I think if some of these feats were 1 feat only, the 3e fighter could focus on more than one style easily.

Well, in trying to define classes by role, the 4e designers did a lot of "excluding of options" so that your class would always be in its role. Since fighters were supposed to wade into melee and draw attacks to themselves, they simply couldn't be given the option of using bows. It would have violated concept.

Similarly, the ranger was supposed to be EITHER a two-weapon fighter or an archer. Doing both was just sub-optimal.

In other words, 4e's power system pigenholed every character into basically using one weapon for his whole career. While niche protection is very good for defining roles, it practically screams "THIS IS A GAME!" and is not the least bit realistic.

My two cents.

4e did that a lot: there were few ranged powers initially for warlords, fighters used great weapons or sword-n-board, rogues were stuck with daggers and crossbows (really? No longsword or shortbow?), rangers were archers or dual-wielders, barbarians got max benefit out of 2-handed weapons, etc. I can see some use for iconic weapons (rogues don't need greataxes) but pigeonholing a class to one type of weapon is bad.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is awesome, but it is not the same thing as a mark. Imposing yourself as a shield for an ally is not the same thing as giving the bad guy an evil eye that just makes it slightly harder to attack someone else.

If a guy wearing good armor, waving a sword, axe or similar like he knows how to use it, with the physique to back up the threat, gets in your face, then calling it the "evil eye" is a kind of missing the point. I guess from a particularly odd point of view, that is a kind of mind control. Yeah, the guy is probably getting in your head a bit. But even if you are totally collected and not letting any head games happen, you'd have to acknowledge, "pay some attention to me or pay the consequences, your choice".

Now, in reality, you perfectly free to say, "Whatever, I'm not afraid of you," and go smack someone else. It's merely that when you tried that, the hit you took would be far worse than what 4E lets the fighter deal out. So if you want to add to marking something like the ability to ignore the mark in return for risking much greater damage, I'd be fine with that. To keep it simple, they decided that most people would rarely want to make that choice, though.

I can't even comprehend the kind of mindset that thinks marking is somehow out of place or immersion destroying or mind control or whatever objection we have this week, but thinks that completely ignoring a highly trained, heavily armed opponent is realistic. And then on top of that, the poor guy is dinged for being a "defender" when he "should be hitting people hard", and the first thing they want to get rid of is one of his best ways for hitting people hard. You'd almost suspect that someone had no idea how 4E or realistic combat actually worked, but rather had some stylized view of combat derived from earlier games that isn't being shared clearly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e did that a lot: there were few ranged powers initially for warlords, fighters used great weapons or sword-n-board, rogues were stuck with daggers and crossbows (really? No longsword or shortbow?), rangers were archers or dual-wielders, barbarians got max benefit out of 2-handed weapons, etc. I can see some use for iconic weapons (rogues don't need greataxes) but pigeonholing a class to one type of weapon is bad.

There's one word you use but don't emphasise enough. Initially. Almost everything listed is opened up. The archer warlord is completely viable as of Martial Power 2. Fighters use whatever the hell they like, including one build with improvised weapons and another with fists (I'm now having visions of an arena fighter using his greatbow with the improvised weapon rules in melee for what amounts to close range gun fu). Rogues now get shortbows and had maces very early - along with shortswords. You just need a feat for a longsword. The Whirling 2-weapon Barbarian was in Primal Power, and there's a sword and board Beserker build. The Hunter PHB ranger uses ranged weapon and two handed weapon, the marauder throws and smacks face, and IME Scouts carry longbows and are pretty good with them.

 

[JohnSnow]

4e did that a lot: there were few ranged powers initially for warlords, fighters used great weapons or sword-n-board, rogues were stuck with daggers and crossbows (really? No longsword or shortbow?), rangers were archers or dual-wielders, barbarians got max benefit out of 2-handed weapons, etc. I can see some use for iconic weapons (rogues don't need greataxes) but pigeonholing a class to one type of weapon is bad.

Agreed. But I think it's especially bad for the martial types. It's okay if wizards can only use one weapon effectively, because they have magic spells to fall back on.

I have no problem with there being a certain amount of incentive to use the iconic weapons of your class - barbarians should use big scary weapons rather than rapiers and knives, rogues should be the reverse. That's cool, and thematic. But what needs to die in a fire is that niche protection means that we can't build martial characters that are equally effective (or damn nearly so) in both melee and ranged combat. And one of the iconic combinations that HAS to be supported is "blade and bow."

What should the fighter class be? Let me respond with a (slightly edited) quote...

A fighter is a human who studies combat. Fighters usually have greater strength than other characters. They usually hit monsters more often and inflict more damage.

Fighters protect the weaker characters. Strength is needed in many situations. For example a door may be stuck, or a huge boulder may block the party's progress; a strong fighter can often solve these problems. Magic might also work, but magic is limited, and a fighter can use strength as often as desired.

(The) fighter could probably survive a dungeon adventure when exploring alone...the other classes are not as self-sufficient as the fighter. Magic-Users and thieves are much weaker, and although clerics can wear any type of armor, they are limited in other ways.

Fighters need no special abilities to survive and prosper. Their great strength, hit points, strong armor, and many weapons make them a powerful character class.

(Dungeons & Dragons Player's Manual, Frank Mentzer, ed.; 1983.)

I think that sums up the fighter. He should be the strong, self-sufficient character class that can use any weapon and is useful in any situation. He's certainly skilled, but doesn't need to rely on tricks and cunning to survive.

 

[SKyOdin]

This is awesome, but it is not the same thing as a mark. Imposing yourself as a shield for an ally is not the same thing as giving the bad guy an evil eye that just makes it slightly harder to attack someone else.

In this instance, the enemy does whatever it was planning to do and YOU the fighter, make the defense happen.

This kind of blocking as a theme specialty for defender/protector types I can fully support.

Marking is not "giving the bad guy an evil eye". I always imagine marking to be like those scenes in movies where two characters in a swordfight have their blades locked together. The term actually comes from sports (handy wikipedia link), and generally means putting a lot of pressure on an attacker as part of a defensive strategy. It doesn't make sense if you imagine everyone in D&D combat just standing around twiddling their thumbs when it is not their turn, but every edition I have ever played has specifically spelled things out otherwise. I think marking is pretty simple and logical in concept.

 

[JohnSnow]

There's one word you use but don't emphasise enough. Initially. Almost everything listed is opened up. The archer warlord is completely viable as of Martial Power 2. Fighters use whatever the hell they like, including one build with improvised weapons and another with fists (I'm now having visions of an arena fighter using his greatbow with the improvised weapon rules in melee for what amounts to close range gun fu). Rogues now get shortbows and had maces very early - along with shortswords. You just need a feat for a longsword. The Whirling 2-weapon Barbarian was in Primal Power, and there's a sword and board Beserker build. The Hunter PHB ranger uses ranged weapon and two handed weapon, the marauder throws and smacks face, and IME Scouts carry longbows and are pretty good with them.

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.

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? Because the one in HoFK is pretty clearly bow-focused. And I don't see how the Scout can be "pretty good" with a longbow when his one and only encounter power (Power Strike) is MELEE-ONLY!

Sure, he might be arguably viable at 1st-level, but without being able to ramp up the damage, his best tactic past about 6th-level is probably to throw his bow away.

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. 4e penalizes those attempting to be versatile. Or perhaps I should say, it STRONGLY rewards specialization - overly so in my opinion.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but that's been my experience.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If a guy wearing good armor, waving a sword, axe or similar like he knows how to use it, with the physique to back up the threat, gets in your face, then calling it the "evil eye" is a kind of missing the point. I guess from a particularly odd point of view, that is a kind of mind control. Yeah, the guy is probably getting in your head a bit. But even if you are totally collected and not letting any head games happen, you'd have to acknowledge, "pay some attention to me or pay the consequences, your choice".

Now, in reality, you perfectly free to say, "Whatever, I'm not afraid of you," and go smack someone else. It's merely that when you tried that, the hit you took would be far worse than what 4E lets the fighter deal out. So if you want to add to marking something like the ability to ignore the mark in return for risking much greater damage, I'd be fine with that. To keep it simple, they decided that most people would rarely want to make that choice, though.

I can't even comprehend the kind of mindset that thinks marking is somehow out of place or immersion destroying or mind control or whatever objection we have this week, but thinks that completely ignoring a highly trained, heavily armed opponent is realistic. And then on top of that, the poor guy is dinged for being a "defender" when he "should be hitting people hard", and the first thing they want to get rid of is one of his best ways for hitting people hard. You'd almost suspect that someone had no idea how 4E or realistic combat actually worked, but rather had some stylized view of combat derived from earlier games that isn't being shared clearly.

D&D combat has no connection to realistic combat.

X is baaaad fighter (shut yo mouth!) I'm talkin bout X.

O and his brothers are also baad fighters.

In reality, it would be a death sentence to ignore ANY of these guys right?



Y
O O
X O
O


X is fighting O and his baaad brothers. O and his brothers get no advantage for ganging up on X. He has to pay attention to all of them but his divided attention costs him nothing.

Y sees that his buddy X is in deep otyugh dung and rushes over to help.
X marks the O to the NW. Now if that O goes to attack Y, X gets a free attack somehow (despite being heavily pressed) because THAT O was "marked"?

This is why the whole opportunity attack system is ridiculous. It only takes into account consequences for the triggering target.

This is why I think all these immediate actions have little place in an abstract (AC/HP) combat system.

(EDIT: Mentally shift the X and adjacent O a space or two to the right. Posting shoves them "neatly" all over to the left :-( )