Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A: Martial Healing, Fighter Utility, and Ranger Challenges
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 6102965" data-attributes="member: 59411"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pour, post: 6102965, member: 59411"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A: Martial Healing, Fighter Utility, and Ranger Challenges
Top