Does D&D need a fighter class?

[JamesonCourage]

The most obvious solution to that possible workload is that this is what splats/fans/the OGL is for -- more classes become easy and encouraged, because they're all very specific. Even with a "basic rules only" game, though, you could export this to the players -- have them whip up the class they want to play, if the rules are robust enough all you'd need is narrative veto power.

So far, I'm very, very far from satisfied.

Though the workload itself needn't be great.

Aaaand I'm interested again.

You can look at minor changes to existing classes as a way of making them specific to your game. Swap out the Thief of the Red Hand's "Sneak Attack" core mechanic and replace it with perhaps some sort of "Divine Magic" mechanic and now you've got a priesthood of a god of trickery and deceit! It's a new class (since every class is very specific), but the work involved was really quite minor: use Tab B instead of Tab C. Take the yellow lego block and replace it with the blue one.

But this leaves me feeling meh. This works for minor changes. The bigger things get, the more work is required again. Not really good for helping me make classes for each campaign until I've done so a lot (which still takes a lot of work).

The hardest part is getting the break points right, and I took a stab at that in the articles (Background for non-combat skills, Basic Abilities for weapon/armor types, a Core Mechanic to fuel your powers, and Class Abilities that define what you get as you level). I think it's viable, though I don't think it's quite all that I'd want personally...lots of room for improvement!

I know it doesn't help our particular conversation, but I don't read your articles (even -or perhaps especially- when you link them or reference them in conversation). I'm not a fan of "Background for non-combat skills", though (at least, if it's what it sounds like at face value).

But, yeah. I'm not really seeing how this is easy unless you're letting other people do the hard work (use other fan stuff) or just making minor tweaks (your priest of a thief god). That's definitely not hitting the "easy" spot I was hoping for.

 

[doghead]

A game with 30 martial classes, 30 arcane spellcasters, 30 divine spellcasters and 30 scoundrel-types would certainly work fine.

120 classes with a couple of pages per class, a couple of hundred words per page ... this dog's little brain hurts just thinking about it

But so would a game with Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, and nothing else. And since we're closer to the latter, it would be easier to get rid of Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers instead, and no character concept would stay unsupported.

Yay!

thotd

 

[I'm A Banana]

But this leaves me feeling meh. This works for minor changes. The bigger things get, the more work is required again. Not really good for helping me make classes for each campaign until I've done so a lot (which still takes a lot of work).
...
But, yeah. I'm not really seeing how this is easy unless you're letting other people do the hard work (use other fan stuff) or just making minor tweaks (your priest of a thief god). That's definitely not hitting the "easy" spot I was hoping for.

I'm not sure I understand what is "bigger" and thus requiring more work. To use an example that might be closer to 5e's home, if your entire Vancian-esque slot system can be swapped out for something equivalent (like a point system or a bonus die at-will system or a "hold the charge" system or ADE resources), that's a HUGE change that's easy to make.That's the biggest mechanical change I can think to make in a class. Spell/maneuver lists, proficiencies, skills...what's bigger or harder to do?

And if that change is as easy as picking from a list in a book (or in a few different books), it's no harder than adding a Favored Soul to your 3e game or an Assassin to your 4e game or the Meistersinger kit to your 2e game or a Barbarian to your 1e game or a thief to your OD&D game.

Do you see something as more involved?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, D&D absolutely needs a fighter class. Also needs a cleric, thief, and wizard class.

Personally I like the mix of classes they had in 3E. I could probably live withiut the sorcerer though.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not sure I understand what is "bigger" and thus requiring more work.

The bigger the changes, the more work it requires. You gave an example of removing Sneak Attack and adding Divine Magic as a minor change to get what you want. I'm saying that works fine on minor changes, but the bigger the change, the more work you're getting. And with big changes across multiple classes, you could have a recipe for a lot of work each and every campaign.

To use an example that might be closer to 5e's home, if your entire Vancian-esque slot system can be swapped out for something equivalent (like a point system or a bonus die at-will system or a "hold the charge" system or ADE resources), that's a HUGE change that's easy to make.That's the biggest mechanical change I can think to make in a class.

These are kinda just different methods to get the same result; they'd all be different ways to do Lightning Bolt or Fly. I don't feel like it's quite the same as swapping Sneak Attack for Divine Magic. That change can potentially affect balance a lot more.

And if that change is as easy as picking from a list in a book (or in a few different books), it's no harder than adding a Favored Soul to your 3e game or an Assassin to your 4e game or the Meistersinger kit to your 2e game or a Barbarian to your 1e game or a thief to your OD&D game.

Do you see something as more involved?

A book with a list is definitely better than "tweak some stuff you see after you read several dozen to several hundred classes made by us over many books (or some fans who you can hope have a good eye for balance)." It's much closer to a point-buy system where points have been spent for you, and you can cobble together what you want. "I can't do full shapeshifting and full spellcasting and full attacks because I don't have enough points. I'll settle for full shapeshifting and partial spellcasting and good ranged attacks."

I'm much more okay with that than the idea of tweaking classes based on books / fan stuff.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think D&D can get rid of the fighter class by those groups who want to avoid combat. Just like the wizard class can be avoided by those who ignore magic.

Think like a fighter regardless of whether you're in a skirmish-sized battle or not. That's in no way all of what combat means. It's more the entire way you view the world. I remember moving furniture during the summers in college. It was very long hours and difficult work, but we became so good at it that we could go anywhere and size it up. It could be a problem. "Yep, I could pack and load this house with one other loader in six to seven hours." And that was on our days off. It's like being a hammer where everything looks like a nail. A military officer sees the world in the light of combat: defenses, offensive capability, necessary supplies, organization, tons and tons of details I couldn't know because I don't think that way. But Fighters do and that's want needs to be accounted for regardless if swords are being swung or not.

 

[TwoSix]

The most obvious solution to that possible workload is that this is what splats/fans/the OGL is for -- more classes become easy and encouraged, because they're all very specific. Even with a "basic rules only" game, though, you could export this to the players -- have them whip up the class they want to play, if the rules are robust enough all you'd need is narrative veto power.

This sort of approach is well-supported by 3e/5e multiclassing as well, as it obviates the need to stretch out every class concept over 20 levels.

Have a number of 5-10 level classes that support starting concepts, and other classes that support end-game concepts, that can only be taken at 6th or 11th.

 

[I'm A Banana]

These are kinda just different methods to get the same result; they'd all be different ways to do Lightning Bolt or Fly. I don't feel like it's quite the same as swapping Sneak Attack for Divine Magic. That change can potentially affect balance a lot more.

Well, at a high enough level of abstraction, everything is just different ways to do Lightning Bolt or Fly -- Sneak Attack and Divine Magic included.

It might help to have a bit more of a specific definition. Say you're a Thief of the Red Hand and your core mechanic is Sneak Attack, and so you get extra damage on pretty much any attack. Nice. Now we've got the typical Vancian wizard and she's got a few spell slots. Cool.

But spell slots don't do much by themselves, and sneak attack, while fun, is ultimately pretty simple, so in both cases, you get something to do with those abilities. With Sneak Attack, maybe you can give up damage dice in exchange for crippling statuses (stab 'em in the eyes! shank their ham shanks! take that, achilles tendon!). Nasty. And with spell slots, you can spend them to cast spells (blindness! entangle! lightning bolt!).

At a functional mechanical level, a sneak attack that deals 5d6 damage is the same as a spell that deals 5d6 damage. There are different details that might affect the ultimate output (maybe the spell is ranged and so deals less damage; maybe the sneak attack is at-will and so doesn't spike as hard as the 1/day spell, whatever), but their value is comparable. Both sneak attack dice and spell slots are used for the same ultimate purpose: damage, status effects. So you can see how you could trade one for the other -- how you could give up a spell slot in exchange for a sneak attack. (As an aside, I'm just limiting it to combat now for the sake of comparison, but this applies across the pillars as well)

Doing that analysis on every ability yourself is a hassle and a half, so that's what we pay the devs to do for the most part: they tell you, "Okay, you can take spell slots, or you can take sneak attack, and they are basically equivalent." They tell you this by putting them at the same level in your decision tree when making a character, by giving you a list of Core Mechanics, for instance, that you can swap out with each other. So your wizard can take Sneak Attack and do her blindness and entangle and lightning bolt by giving up damage dice. And your thief can take Vancian Casting and do his specific wounds by spending them (spend a spell slot, stab someone in the eyes). And now you have a wizard that likes to surprise and feint and a thief that prepares her combat maneuvers before combat every day for...some reason...

The particular abilities you have are just a matter of, essentially, "alternate spell lists."

You can do this as a DM, or you can let players do this, or you can pick up pre-packaged stuff from splats and expansions. A very flexible over-arching system, with very specific classes living under it.

So, divine magic? Sneak attack? They're both just different ways of powering what is functionally damage and status effects. They lead to interesting differences in play, so they're not equivalent, but they're comparable, and can be balanced broadly against each other (the more robust the maths here, the easier that is).

 

[pemerton]

The bigger the changes, the more work it requires. You gave an example of removing Sneak Attack and adding Divine Magic as a minor change to get what you want. I'm saying that works fine on minor changes, but the bigger the change, the more work you're getting.

<snip>

These are kinda just different methods to get the same result; they'd all be different ways to do Lightning Bolt or Fly. I don't feel like it's quite the same as swapping Sneak Attack for Divine Magic. That change can potentially affect balance a lot more.

Well, at a high enough level of abstraction, everything is just different ways to do Lightning Bolt or Fly -- Sneak Attack and Divine Magic included.

I think I'm closer to JC on this one.

There are certainly systems that work at the requisite level of abstraction - Marvel Heroic RP is an example of one - but I don't think D&D is such a system. How many clerical spell slots is an AD&D thief's backstab worth? That's a hard question to answer, and you have to go detailed, not abstract. (Tentative suggestion: backstab is worth about 1 round of fighter damage, so perhaps half a cure spell of the relevant level. 4 encounters per day makes backstab worth 2 spells of the highest level available to a character of that level. How did Monte Cook balance it for the Akashic in AU/E?)

 

[I'm A Banana]

How many clerical spell slots is an AD&D thief's backstab worth? That's a hard question to answer, and you have to go detailed, not abstract. (Tentative suggestion: backstab is worth about 1 round of fighter damage, so perhaps half a cure spell of the relevant level. 4 encounters per day makes backstab worth 2 spells of the highest level available to a character of that level. How did Monte Cook balance it for the Akashic in AU/E?)

That's exactly the question and the way to answer it, and that's why for the most part, we'd pay the designers to do this stuff and just tell us what we can swap for what.