D&D 5E (2014) D&D Next Blog - The Fighter

[Dragonblade]

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.

If the designers keep their core design goal of a simple base with baked in abilities at every level, but advanced players can swap out those baked in options for different custom options, I'll probably be satisfied.

If the base looks like a simplified 3e/Pathfinder fighter with simplified baked in feat choices, but I can trick it out and turn it into a ToB style Warblade via ability and feats swaps, that would be my ideal.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

4E could not accommodate those concepts. When my wife created her fighter, we were stunned to realize that a Fighter couldn't wear Plate. It made the Paladin seem like a better fighter than the fighter. My wife also found the Defender role disappointing: sure the fighter had always been the meat-shield...but that was in addition to laying down the smack. In many ways the 4E fighter should be rename The Blocker or The Threatener...because they don't fight nearly so much as they take punishment. And that's fine...if you want to play that particular role.

To me, the fighter should fulfill his particular niche better than anyone else, and he should be able to do it with skill while not exceeding other classes (or falling behind them). Mostly I agree with Morrus. The 'core-four' should be the template: fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric.

The idea of themes sounds like a good way to allow much of the customization that 3E offered without needing 10 class concepts to fulfill the role. Want an archer? Make a fighter with the archer theme. Want a greatswordsman? Take the Zweihander theme. Want a cavalier? Take the Knight theme...and so on.

A class should be able to be summarize in a single concept:

Fighter: master of weapons and armor
Rogue: sneaks, highly skilled
Wizard: master of magic
Cleric: warrior-priest

The second tier concepts follow on those, with enough flavor and play difference to matter:

Sorceror: mage with less choice, more frequency
Paladin: holy warrior
Barbarian: light-armored warrior who rages
Ranger: woodsman with bow or dual-weapon skills
Bard: jack of all trades, master of none; uses music magic
Druid: shape-shifting nature magic-user

To me, the fighter should be able to encompass a variety of concepts (as it has in the past), whether it be the valorous knight, the precise archer, the monster with a greatsword or the 'mace-o-matic' walking tank.

What I liked about the 3E fighter was his not just his large number of weapons and armor, but the combat options that made his options more exciting. Others see exploits and loopholes and perhaps there were plenty of 'blind kobold' issues to be fixed....but the ability to choose to fight based on more than just rolling a d20 was a welcome change. 4E followed this trend and delivered lots of great battlefield control options, but sacrificed dynamics to do it, IMHO.

I hope the 5E makes the fighter versatile, not limited.

 

[Consonant Dude]

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.

Don't get me wrong, I played 3e for years (and GURPS for almost as long before) and I understand some people really appreciate the complexity and feel it makes the character rich. But over time, my groups came to realize the impression characters were more rich was an illusion. Looking back, our 1st edition characters did just as much as those in recent editions with much less hassle. My campaigns are character-heavy, in the sense I use a lot of NPCs (rather than monsters) and a major part of the time spent is in densely populated area with intrigue. I stat out tons of NPCs, in many case I have to do it on short notice and even on the fly.

I hope we can both get what we want out of 5e but I'm of course preaching for my side . My players can customize by writing flavorful bits on their character sheet. They can attempt maneuvers I will adjudicate on the fly rather than sift through bland options on their sheet. The heart of the group is the DM's ability to create a campaign setting, populate it, make it grow over time and most of all, sustain it as the characters experience it and make their impact. Complexity makes it hard work. Low-prep is a major requirement for me these days and it's why I have abandoned DnD in favor of simpler games.

I think it would be wise of WotC to revert to the older approach of catering to the DM's needs first. But that's me and I understand if you disagree. Hopefully, the modular approach they are speaking about can appeal to both of us!

 

[CM]

It seems a lot of people judged the 4e fighter in its PHB-only form against the 3e fighter with literally years worth of options added on and were disappointed...

 

[Kynn]

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.

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

 

[Kynn]

Actually, I don't think Marking is "bad" so much as I think it's unnecessary if the classes are designed right.

What I don't want is for the marking mechanic to be used as an excuse for making the fighter crappier (less dangerous) than they should be. The fighter draws attention because he's dangerous? But then, shouldn't he actually BE dangerous? And if the character is that dangerous, why does he even need the marking mechanic?

For example, prior to 4e, when the PCs got into a combat than involved an ogre, the ogre didn't need a marking mechanic. He's got a big scary club, lots of hit points, and he'll stomp you if you leave him on the battlefield, so you take the bastard DOWN!

Effectively, the ogre is "drawing fire" from his allies. The ogre is playing "defender" just by being there! Because, duh, he's dangerous.

Make sense?

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.

 

[Kynn]

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.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Closest think I can think of is SWTOR which has something similar to the swordmage's bubble ability. Tanks can redirect damage from a single ally to themselves. That's probably the closest I've ever seen a video game get to a 4e mark.

And really, video games evolved from the TTRPGs, heck most of them still use basically the d20 system in the background to determine damage/hitting.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Agreed. We referred to our half-ogre fighter in 2e as "tank" because he had a nice AC and enough strength to keep most foes focused on him.

I don't mind marking as a combat option: both 3e's knight and Pathfinder's Cavalier have a mark/fight me mechanic, and I think it should be an option for 5e fighters as well. I just hope a fighter doesn't end up being ONLY a mark/defender character to keep the "striker" role viable. A good fighter should deal damage as good as he takes it. Rogues and other's like that are good for "quick burst" damage, but fighters should deal good damage round after round.