D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[I'm A Banana]

Some people are completely intolerant of Fighters that deviate from the OD&D -> PF paradigm of fighter-as-fodder, demand a game that has class-itis, or will nit-pick every non-magical effect in a system to death.

...


The question is what kind of subset is the Fighter? To some people the Fighter must (no matter if they are the one playing the Fighter or the one playing another character at the same table with a Fighter) be the big-dumb-jock who has heavy armor, big weapons, and deals in nothing but hit points or it's BadWrongFun and "Not Real D&D."

I do not think this opinion is as widespread as you seem to fear it is, but since it isn't either of ours, I'm not sure it matters that someone somewhere might behave like that.

In D&DNext the Successful Player Character is the archetype of "guy who is awesome at combat."

...

The Fighter should be the master of arms, the best at any sort of direct application of weapons - bows, swords, axes, hammers, fists, lances, spears, fists, whatever. He must have access to all forms of armor and shields as well as a lot of hit-points to endure a prolonged or especially heated melee.

Should the Warlord be a Warrior? Yes.
Must the Warlord be the ultimate master of arms? No.
Must the Warlord be the hardiest and stoutest on the field? No.

Therefore, a Warlord need not be a Fighter any more than a Monk or a Barbarian need be.

I'm not yet convinced of your first statement, and I think if the game turns out like that, we're going to have a lot of disappointed players.

As for the rest of it, I think "guy who is good at using equipment" is also a subset of "guy who is good at combat." To me, the Fighter is the latter, and one example of this is that they can use equipment well and another example of this is that they can use their party members well, and maybe one fighter will learn 1,000 different kinds of moves with his favorite sword and another fighter will learn 1,000 different kinds of weapons and another fighter will learn 1,000 different strategic plans of attack, and another fighter will learn a few moves with his favorite sword, a few extra weapons and shields, and also a handful of strategic abilities to help improve her allies.

The common denominator of all these things is "combat." That's the Fighter's bailiwick: fightin'. It's right there in the name.

Monks, barbarians, rangers, whatever....they might be capable in combat, but they are not about combat. Monks are about enlightenment and mysticism. Barbarians are about losing control and being dangerously unpredictable. Rangers are about knowledge and intimacy with the wilderness they live in. Paladins are about crusading and justice and nobility and probably horses.

A warlord, as a "guy who is a tactical strategist," is still a guy who is about combat.

It's the same way that a sorcerer in most 3e games was functionally, "guy who casts more spells," thus being a guy who is still about magic spells, and thus being a good candidate to be a subset of some Mage class (the guy who is about spells) in NEXT, rather than its own class.

Or the same way that the assassin in play is really "the guy who sneaks up and stabs people," thus being a guy who is about stealth and sneaking, and a good candidate to be a subset of Rogue (the guy who is about sneaking and stabbing) in NEXT, rather than its own class.

In my view, it kind of weakens the fighter if you say that they can't be the guy who is the strategic genius, and that if you want a strategic genius, you have to play some other kind of class, not a fighter. Fighters in my mind are not only about some limited space in combat (like "weapon" or like "melee,"), they are about the whole bag.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The common denominator of all these things is "combat." That's the Fighter's bailiwick: fightin'. It's right there in the name.

...

A warlord, as a "guy who is a tactical strategist," is still a guy who is about combat.

...

In my view, it kind of weakens the fighter if you say that they can't be the guy who is the strategic genius, and that if you want a strategic genius, you have to play some other kind of class, not a fighter. Fighters in my mind are not only about some limited space in combat (like "weapon" or like "melee,"), they are about the whole bag.

I could not agree more with this.

My problem with the Warlord class was that it implied that Fighters aren't warlords. Which they totally are (at least in the kind of game I want to play).

 

[mlund]

I do not think this opinion is as widespread as you seem to fear it is, but since it isn't either of ours, I'm not sure it matters that someone somewhere might behave like that.

There are more people than just the two of us on the forum, and there are vastly more threads about Fighters and Warlords and martial-types in general than just this one. Some themes keep coming up time after time, though, which leads me to believe some folks will never be happy with anything that takes the Fighter out of the "beat it with sticks" box.

I'm not yet convinced of your first statement, and I think if the game turns out like that, we're going to have a lot of disappointed players.

Sorry, but that was the original justification for selling the Fighter in Next. The BEST wielder of any particular weapon in all the land would be a Fighter. That doesn't mean every Fighter is automatically better than every class at every Weapon or Combat Style.

As for the rest of it, I think "guy who is good at using equipment" is also a subset of "guy who is good at combat." To me, the Fighter is the latter, and one example of this is that they can use equipment well and another example of this is that they can use their party members well, and maybe one fighter will learn 1,000 different kinds of moves with his favorite sword and another fighter will learn 1,000 different kinds of weapons and another fighter will learn 1,000 different strategic plans of attack, and another fighter will learn a few moves with his favorite sword, a few extra weapons and shields, and also a handful of strategic abilities to help improve her allies.

Except the Fighter really doesn't have any of those things on the table. He has no maneuvers that use his allies. He has no Weapon Specialization. He's a blunt sort of generalist with a few options on how to hit things to slightly different effect that "make it lose maximum hit points." He's also hard to kill via hit-point reduction - but enjoys no particular durability to the wide array of magical effects that bypass hit points. (This was another initially selling point on the Fighter when they kicked off DNDNext that seems to have been swept under the rug).

The common denominator of all these things is "combat." That's the Fighter's bailiwick: fightin'. It's right there in the name.

Of course, every class needs to be good at combat in D&D for the sake of game play. It's another place where D&D deviates wildly from fantasy novels. No class is designed to churn out D or F rank combatants to the Fighter's A-rank. Even the worst classes are barely a letter-grade behind the Fighter in terms of contributing in a fight, and people rent their garments and gnashed their teeth all over the place until the Rogue was elevated to an A- rank at worst - a lower HP, higher DPS configuration, really.

Meanwhile the Fighter does ... pretty much nothing outside of combat encounters. That's a significant problem in a class-based game system where all the classes contribute relatively equally in combat encounters.

The Fighter stops being a "Big Damn Hero" when the fight scenes is over, which is kind of disappointing, really. He's not a spotlight hog in combat, so you'd think he could at least have an Action Hero Shtick when it comes to stunts and assuming the posture of a bad-ass in social situations.

Monks, barbarians, rangers, whatever....they might be capable in combat, but they are not about combat. Monks are about enlightenment and mysticism. Barbarians are about losing control and being dangerously unpredictable. Rangers are about knowledge and intimacy with the wilderness they live in. Paladins are about crusading and justice and nobility and probably horses.

You know, it might be telling that in Role Play some classes can actually be introduced by name in a conversation and not sound incredibly stupid, while others do.

While Rogues and Barbarians don't call themselves that, others could do so. Wizards do what they say on the tin. Knights, Cavaliers, Rangers, and Paladins are all self-explanatory. Monks, Clerics, and Fighters are the awkward ones, to be sure, but the Fighter most of all.

Nobody says, "there goes Robert, the Fighter." They say, "there goes Robert, the sell-sword / duelist / blade-master / warrior / whatever." In general, they'll make a distinction between an exceptional warrior (hero) and fodder types, as well as distinctions between those who follow (rank and file) and those who lead (officers).

In my view, it kind of weakens the fighter if you say that they can't be the guy who is the strategic genius, and that if you want a strategic genius, you have to play some other kind of class, not a fighter. Fighters in my mind are not only about some limited space in combat (like "weapon" or like "melee,"), they are about the whole bag.

Frankly, I think that whole bag just isn't good enough for a character class in a well-designed RPG with 3 pillars of play. I'd rather have the Fighter be the Action Hero Archetype - master of beat-downs, epic stunt-man, walks away from explosions, shakes off / guts out horrible effects by sheer grit and will-power, etc. If we're going to sub-set the Berserker and Martial-Artist into their own genre, though, it only makes sense that the Tactician gets his own space too. He's a warrior. He's not necessarily Das Uberkrieger like the "Fighter" is.

- Marty Lund

 

[Ratskinner]

Except that nobody is forcing anyone to select warlord or fighter. If I select warlord I know exactly what I'm getting, and all the other options are still available. If I select fighter I know exactly what I'm getting, and all the other options are still available. If the only option is fighter there is no choice. If the base ability for the fighter is Strength, and when I select the option for warlord that is still the only option then there is no option.

First, yes they are. Its the part of character creation that says "Pick a class". Even in 4e, you get one. (Unless you're doing that hybrid thing, but that sounds like a train wreck we don't need to visit here.) Having the warlordy stuff be a set of fighter maneuvers just moves that particular choice (Fighter or Warlord) down one step into the "Pick a fighting style" part of Fighter. The Warlord isn't screwed out of any options any more than a 4e Warlord is screwed by not being able to pick Fighter powers.

If you are suggesting that somehow players that might want to play a warlord-style character won't be able to find it hidden so well in there. I must disagree, I think they'll manage to snuff out that a "tactician" guy would be a fighter. Seems like the first place to look, really. Especially when you consider that word "Warlord" has enough baggage from outside D&D that folks were recently arguing whether that should still be the name of the class.

Checking out my current playtest document...it looks to me like the classes don't have "base ability" stats, and the fighter gets a bonus to (his choice) Str, Dex, or Con. Seems to me that a ranged Warlord is still a viable option. No loss there. Want a high charisma?..knock yourself out. However, the way the current maneuvers are written, you won't need it, they don't depend on ability scores. Otherwise, I'm really not sure what your last sentence means...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd love for them to get serious about folding things like the warlord back into the fighter. That would mean they'd get serious about providing some options not buried into the class structure to give more breadth. Then that would mean they'd get serious about removing most other classes, including barbarian, paladin, etc. Stick to the main 4--or perhaps the main 4 with a few carefully chosen classes to represent the intersections that are not done well via multi-classing--or keep a few more to represent the intersections and ditch multi-classing altogether.

I don't have much of a preference for the exact route chosen, but I would like some consistency. Take the inconsistent traditions out behind the barn and stick a sharp knife into them. Insisting that we get fighter, cleric, rogue, ranger, and paladin--and then not exploring other archetypes--means that crap mechanics get shoehorned into the whole system to make that sort of work out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are more people than just the two of us on the forum, and there are vastly more threads about Fighters and Warlords and martial-types in general than just this one. Some themes keep coming up time after time, though, which leads me to believe some folks will never be happy with anything that takes the Fighter out of the "beat it with sticks" box.

Sounds pretty cynical to me, but I don't think I've met any of your mythical people who just have it out for the Fighter and who won't rest until playing one sucks for all D&D players everywhere. My point is that this isn't a relevant tangent -- it doesn't matter if someone somewhere thinks that. They're free to do so and to play the game they like, too. That's not really what we're talking about here, though.

Sorry, but that was the original justification for selling the Fighter in Next. The BEST wielder of any particular weapon in all the land would be a Fighter. That doesn't mean every Fighter is automatically better than every class at every Weapon or Combat Style.

Not sure where you're getting your info, but according to WotC:

Part of building a good fighter is meeting expectations, and players expect a fighter to be good at combat; if we had a diplomat class, the expectation would be that it was the best at diplomacy. The reason for this is simple: The warrior is an identity—a fantasy archetype that players seek out when building characters. Yes, many people engage in combat and fight monsters, but the warrior archetype that the fighter represents is big and important in fantasy in the same way that wizards and rogues are. Characters like Gimli, Lan Mandragoran, Leonidas, Madmartigan (yeah, that’s right, I made a Willow reference), the eponymous Seven Samurai, and King Arthur are all examples of fighters who typify the warrior archetype from fantasy.

Being a fighter isn’t just about punching or stabbing (or shooting) someone really hard; it’s about adhering to the warrior archetype. You’ve probably heard the phrase, “The Way of the Warrior;” it’s a term coined to describe not just combat competence, but a lifestyle dedicated to prowess and the application of the lessons learned in battle to the rest of his or her life. The fighter class cleaves closest to this archetype, and it’s very easy to see how the philosophy of the warrior emerges through the fighter class. The warrior archetype is based on skill, aggression, purpose, adaptability, self-reliance and discipline, not just on the battlefield but also in life. Think about how the warrior character in your favorite fantasy story behaves even outside of combat and you can probably see those characteristics shine through. Now look at the fighter class; it’s built with the tools it needs to exercise all of those principles on the battlefield.

Outside of the battlefield, the warrior expresses these principles through attitude and decisions, two things that fall firmly into the camp of roleplaying and background. We’re taking a lot of steps in the game to make sure that everyone has access to all of the major pillars of the game in some capacity; for example, we’ve standardized the number of skills most people get, and, though some classes give out bonus skills, even that is something we’re constantly evaluating. Likewise, we don’t take steps to restrict certain backgrounds to certain classes, allowing the playeras to choose how they express the archetype. That way, even if you’ve chosen the mythic archetype of the warrior—typified by the fighter—you have the tools you need to build his or her story, personality, and destiny in a way that lets you put your own spin on it.

That's what the fighter is meant to be. That's the archetype they fill. And that pretty clearly reaches into "battlefield tactician" territory.

"I'm good with weapons" isn't a big enough hook, really.

Frankly, I think that whole bag just isn't good enough for a character class in a well-designed RPG with 3 pillars of play. I'd rather have the Fighter be the Action Hero Archetype - master of beat-downs, epic stunt-man, walks away from explosions, shakes off / guts out horrible effects by sheer grit and will-power, etc. If we're going to sub-set the Berserker and Martial-Artist into their own genre, though, it only makes sense that the Tactician gets his own space too. He's a warrior. He's not necessarily Das Uberkrieger like the "Fighter" is.

Your archetypes aren't on-target. Classes aren't packages of abilities, they are playstyle choices.

Barbarians aren't about berserking, they're a character choice that represents a desire for the player to play a certain kind of character, in a certain manner -- a wild, barely-restrained character who swings dangerously and is risky to have around. Berserking is a mechanic that helps reinforce that.

Monks aren't about martial arts, they're a character choice that represents that same desire -- in this case, a controlled, reserved character who unleashes semi-mystical buttkicking and personal enlightenment. Unarmed attacking is a mechanic that helps reinforce that.

The NEXT fighter can already be a duelist, or an archer. That's not "big tough guy" territory. "Big tough guy" is one way to play the fighter, but so is "agile speedster" or "calm marksman." It can certainly, in my mind, include "clever leader." These are all about that warrior archetype. That's the playstyle choice, here: the fighter is a master of combat, a warrior through-and-through, whose world is colored by experience in deadly combat, and whose skill lies there.

You seem to want the Fighter to be something much more limited and specific than it has largely been in D&D, historically (where they were becoming lords and leading armies by level 9!). All fighters are not big tough guys. All fighters are heroic warriors -- which includes the big tough guy, but also includes the keen-eyed sniper and the witty swordsman and the courageous, clever leader. And characters with a bit of all those.

 

[Obryn]

"I'm good with weapons" isn't a big enough hook, really.

Not when you phrase it like that, no, in such a way to make it sound inherently terrible. I'm thinking more in terms of the consummate athlete whose armor and weapons are extensions of their body, allowing them to perform feats many would consider impossible.

That's my idea of a Fighter - pursuing physical perfection in battle through skill and training. Not dumb brutes, but terrifying warriors of singular skill.

That's not my idea of a Warlord.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

The big question is, does 5e's Fighter class (and the D&D Fighter class generally) encapsulate this:

Warlord thematic description courtesy of WotC D&D 4e

When dark forces muster in the wilderness, when hosts of monsters assemble to sack civilization’s last redoubts, it falls to the marshal to lead the warriors in defense of their lands. Marshals draw from their experience and passion to lend courage, skill, and hope to those under their command. A warlord forms the iron core of any unit of soldiers, uniting their purpose and bolstering their commitment to see the conflict to its conclusion.

A marshal’s talents can come from many different aspects of personality or endeavor. Some depend on their bravado, goading their companions to take risks in order to reap great rewards. Others have keen insight into their enemies’ minds. Some marshals specialize in hit-and-run tactics, and others are resourceful leaders who always have some trick up their sleeves. The most common marshals include those whose presence alone is enough to bind disparate heroes together and the tactical savants who spot weaknesses and exploit them.

Marshals develop specialized combat maneuvers called exploits. In their elementary form, they are strikes and commands designed to shift the battle toward a more favorable outcome. In addition to these exploits, marshals issue commands and orders that improve their allies’ performance. Some of these commands can restore health and vigor, while others make allies more alert and ready for new challenges.

Most marshals have already had experience in the field, even if it came from leading a tiny expedition. Some are former military leaders who have relinquished their commands to seek their fortunes in the world. Others might have lost their units and be out for revenge against the enemy that brought them to ruin. Whatever the individual’s triumphs or defeats were before becoming an adventurer, every marshal has the ability to lead, and lead well.

Does the 5e Fighter class give you the ability to:

- Give advantage on Insight and Perception checks to all allies within 50 ft.
- Give all allies advantage on Initiative.
- Give allies bonuses to tactical movement, defenses, attacks, damage, temporary hit points, and outright gains in the action economy. Do this on both your own turn and as immediate actions triggered by your allies or your enemies actions. Do this especially effectively for an allied ambush or a nova.
- Heal allies; Call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and determination that invigorates your comrade.


The answer to both of these should be pretty clear.

 

[Pour]

I don't believe the Fighter and Warlord classes are as close as some people claim. They really don't overlap beyond the idea of being martial, and yet Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, and Rogues also use weapons and 'fight'. I think pre-4th, we lumped the two together for lack of the option, but not every Fighter is a leader, nor every Warlord a fighter.

If I'm understanding Kamikaze correctly, that Fighter and Barbarian really are distinct enough to be separate classes based not solely on origin or mechanics but predominantly playstyle, then I can't help but use the same logic to defend the existence of the Warlord, whose providence is entirely different than the Fighter based on intention alone- the sly, inspiring, hardened, or calculated marshal who plans, provides, and improvises on a team scale, and the fighters who are the warriors and specialists he aids with his tactical savvy.

The intentions between Fighter and Warlord character concepts are very different, and implementing them should be equally so. A Warlord is more than a fighter dipping in leadership, and I don't see a Warlord class in any way making a Fighter obsolete or less appealing. It's all a matter of what a player wants out of the martial approach.

Now if you want to argue the nature of 'leader' and 'tactics' as being either hard, numerical mechanics or entirely player cleverness, that's another matter entirely. Either camp, I believe the Warlord could be made to serve both preferences by providing anything from numbers to opportunities in and out of combat.

 

[mlund]

Sounds pretty cynical to me, but I don't think I've met any of your mythical people who just have it out for the Fighter and who won't rest until playing one sucks for all D&D players everywhere.

I've met plenty of people on this board that constantly trot out some stripe of "that's not realistic" / "that's too magical" / "that breaks the simulation" time and time again whenever a non-magical class does something extraordinary, be it morale-based "healing," maneuvers that force enemies to move / think / feel some way etc.. They always come down to the same eventually place: some people are not comfortable with a martial character that deals in anything but brute applications of physics.

Hence the recurring Warlord hate-fests and the "hit it with sticks" box for the fighter.

That's not really what we're talking about here, though.

It's a recurring bone of contention whenever anyone brings up the Warlord or bringing the Warlord's abilities under the Fighter's umbrella. A poorly implemented Tactician Fighter replacing the Warlord is a very easy way to wipe the Warlord out of DNDNext.

Not sure where you're getting your info but according to WotC:

Yeah, according to WotC this: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430

I'm almost positive you read that article with it came out.

The fighter is skilled with all weapons. The best archer, jouster, and swordmaster in the realm are all fighters. A monk can match a fighter’s skill when it comes to unarmed combat, and rangers and paladins are near a fighter’s skill level, but the fighter is typically in a class by itself regardless of weapon.

Now, I'm sure some design goals and promises used to try and sell people on the DNDNext play-test and initial push will get quietly swept under the rug once their marketing purposes were fulfilled, but I don't have to be happy about it, or pretend they didn't exist.

That's what the fighter is meant to be. That's the archetype they fill. And that pretty clearly reaches into "battlefield tactician" territory. "I'm good with weapons" isn't a big enough hook, really.

Unfortunately, "I'm good with weapons," is all WotC managed to design into the game before they declared the Core Rules to be "finished." Brilliant, that.

If we really want to address play-styles that can be encapsulated in a class and create a narrative role then the Fighter is the Action Hero (master of the beat-down, stunt-man, able to shake off / gut out anything), and the Warlord is the Fearless Leader.