Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6098514" data-attributes="member: 50304">THISEvery edition before 4E had the Fighter (and all non-casting classes, actually) stuck with a simple script: hit monsters and sponge damage (if the DM feels magnanimous enough to attack you instead of walking by and pounding the Characters That Matter [IE - "casters"]).Late 3.5 introduced ways beyond "Trip" and "Grapple" to hinder enemies in martial combat with feats that let the Rogue trade out Sneak Attack damage for penalties against monsters. The Marshall introduced a second-tier warrior who could make his allies better in combat. 4th Edition actually gave the Fighter shticks to pin down and hinder enemies and created the Warlord class. Heroes of the Feywild even introduced semi-Martial Bard build in the Skald.But all of these things are innovations. For most of D&D's history the spell casters held every card when it came to matters of manipulating the battlefield, enhancing allies, and generally anything having to do with team work or using Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma in combat.In some regards, what DnDNext is showing us is a regression in game design on this topic. It's even kind of humorous because you see so many fits and starts in D&D where the concept of a squad leader is in the story, but there's a gaping hole where the mechanics should be. From its roots in Tactical Miniatures Wargaming the Squad Leader was a critical component. The 1E Fighter attracted followers and built a stronghold. Famous leader characters in the 80s and 90s had nothing on their mechanical resume - just a plot device in a novel. The Leadership feat in 3.X just gave you a henchman. It's always been there: an empty void where the Warlord / Marshall / Tactician is supposed to go.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

Verification