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.)