D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Martial Healing, Fighter Utility, and Ranger Challenges

[Pour]

The Fighter though? Man, that guy only has minimal competence in all three pillars. He has nothing special that elevates him in terms of exploration/interaction, and his combat abilities (mainly maneuvers) are worse than the Monk's and Barbarian's.

I find this to be indicative of a faulty class design approach in Next thus far, and maybe in D&D in general. We have a mismatched selection of such broad concepts as the Fighter, and then such specific classes as Paladin and Ranger that cannibalize a large segment of his exploration/social applications. Paladins, Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, and Warlords could all be considered shades of the Fighter. They all deal in martial combat, they all use weapons, they all train in some capacity, and those shades nearly equal and perhaps even trump his combat ability while also having interesting, dynamic suites of additional abilities that make their exploration and social interaction fun and unique. It makes me call into question the validity of a Fighter class as a concept at all, at least as it currently exists.

While the Fighter can use backgrounds, specialties, feats, and even reflavoring to bolster some concepts like gladiator or bodyguard to help him in these non-combat areas, I find the options added onto the Fighter are really just creating a lesser version of its more mechanically robust cousins. I'm not convinced a Fighter with a manhunter specialty is going to be nearly as dynamic as a Ranger, a class with dedicated support right out of the gate and a multitude of options in the PHB and most definitely future supplements that allow for, ultimately, more customization within a narrower concept. Would a Fighter with a templar specialty be as satisfying or mechanically robust as a Paladin with class support? How about a Fighter with a leadership option opposed to a Warlord with multiple class builds and means of differentiating his command around a class-specific mechanic? I'd say no, the Fighter falls flat.

I'm proposing they either gather all the martial classes under a broader Fighter class with several interchangeable class features and more-elaborate specialties to provide for various types of Rangers, Monks, etc, etc, OR they give into specificity and create many classes that reflect upon each other and incorporate most specialties into their features. If there are Rangers and Paladins, then there should also be Warlords, Shaman, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Barbarians, Ninjas, and Inquisitors. In the former option, you may only be simplifying things on paper given the amount of options you'd need to provide to create the level of customization within a class needed to adequately represent everything a Fighter would need to encompass, but in the latter design scheme, you are greatly undermining the 'core four' by default and leading yourself toward conceptual overlap and, ultimately, optimization for having a 'better' option to realize the same idea (which leads to all sorts of angst).

I mean what is the design objective of a class opposed to a specialty, anyway? How can an edition adequately provide for both the broad and specific class and maintain the integrity of each without one being better and/or significant conceptual overlap? Should a class have one pillar as its dedicated province like Fighter or Rogue? I'm not sure.

 

[randomwizard]

Steve Winter (part of the WotC team) mentioned in a tweet that they argued about Ranger being a background for Fighters or Rogues.
http://randomwizard.blogspot.com/2013/03/should-ranger-be-class.html

 

[Plaguescarred]

Hell no, i want Ranger to be a full class. Animal empathy, favored enemy, spells and all that...

 

[drothgery]

When 4e came out, the warlord class made sense. But as the edition progressed, the introduction of subclasses like the Slayer and Knight signalled the possibility of a single class having more than one possible build (further explored in the dual roles of the Berserker and Bladesinger). In hindsight, the warlord could've been a subclass of Fighter, akin to the Slayer and the Knight.

FWIW, I thought the Essentials subclasses concept was a bad idea, and the Slayer and Knight (and most of the other 'builds' added later, except for the ones like Mage and Warpriest that had very few differences from their PHB versions) should have been their own classes and that multi-role classes were absurd. Of course, I also thought a lot of stuff that had a specific class as a pre-requisite should have had a power source or a role as a prerequisite. But I'm a 'lots of focused classes' guy.

 

[Ratskinner]

I actually disagree with the whole premise that being good/bad at combat is balanced by expertise or lack thereof in other areas. I like the 4e model in which all classes are equally adept at combat (even though in any given encounter some characters will have a chance to outshine others). I'd like to extend that with a solid system for exploration and social interactions in which all classes may contribute.

I don't have a problem with that, but that doesn't seem to be a design principle they wanted to use. I'm also not sure how that impacts some of the classes who's identities are very much wrapped up in OoC abilities rather than combat abilities. Also, for some, that weakens the fighter's identity.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If they ever accepted the plain fact that from the name and concept itself, the barbarian is a background, the ranger is a specialty, and the paladin is some kind of dedication/code that isn't currently represented--but otherwise all outgrowths of the fighter--then they could make backgrounds, specialties, and the third things have some other options, while making the game quite varied and flavorful. But to do that would be to admit that the backgrounds and specialties weren't only skills and feat--and that they've never really come to terms with culture and codes in D&D. Pity.

 

[Ratskinner]

If they ever accepted the plain fact that from the name and concept itself, the barbarian is a background, the ranger is a specialty, and the paladin is some kind of dedication/code that isn't currently represented--but otherwise all outgrowths of the fighter--then they could make backgrounds, specialties, and the third things have some other options, while making the game quite varied and flavorful. But to do that would be to admit that the backgrounds and specialties weren't only skills and feat--and that they've never really come to terms with culture and codes in D&D. Pity.

Good post. Must spread XP, though.