Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[MortalPlague]

I was hoping for the same thing, but in the end I think it's a very good sign that this isn't even a beta test, but more like an "alpha test." It signals to me that our opinion and input does matter, and that the development time isn't so short that the playtest is a formality.

That's a good point. Also, Mike Mearls' point about testing all the broad things first makes a lot of sense. It's hard to figure out how the game plays in a general sense if all the feedback is about how one particular feat is broken, or how one build is totally lame.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1. Makes me a little nervous, there being some balance issues with one class being better than others at combat as opposed to everybody being good at combat in their own way.
2. This is pretty standard, though when the game stops being mundane Fighters should transcend being mundane
3. Hell yea
4. I'd actually like to see this, and I'll believe it when I see it. Customizable character creation seems to inevitably results in people focusing on doing one thing well at the expense of everything else. The only way I see this truly happening is giving Fighters competence in their non-specialized style for freee.
5. This one kind of confusing, not sure what they mean. It makes me think back to 2E when the Fighter's HP and AC were at lot higher compared to everything else than they tended to be in 3E and 4E. In 2E and earlier, the Fighter didn't just have the best numbers, it wasn't even close.
6. YesYesYesYesYesYeesYesYesYesYesYes

Should have been on the list

(7.) Fighters should be awesome outside of combat. Its been said before, and it should be repeated until Mike Mearls' ears bleed.

(8.) Fighters shoudn't be boring. Fighters shouldn't have to spam the same thing every turn because its all they are.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'm more interested in the playtest info. The fighter stuff just confirms what we'd already figured out.

So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us." Exactly what I didn't want to hear. So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?

 

[am181d]

I like heavily armored, tough fighters, but I also want lightly armored agile fighters, and even unarmored magically-enhanced fighters, to be viable options from the start of the game. If you're in a desert or at sea, you should still be able to hold your own as a fighter without needing heavy armor. If you want to make a character who uses a little magic to enhance your combat abilities, you should be able to give a heavily armored fighter a solid challenge.

Are you looking for an AC that's higher than a rogue of the same level?

One of the reasons I always wish that D&D separated out armor from hard-to-hittedness is that I really want the rogue to be harder to hit and the fighter to be better at resisting damage. As is, it's really hard to maintain that flavor because between the AC and the hit points, it's all very murky as to what's happening.

 

[WarlockLord]

In other words, the things fighters can do at high levels are equal to the things a mid-level wizard can do. Yay balance!

 

[Jack99]

I'm more interested in the playtest info. The fighter stuff just confirms what we'd already figured out.

So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us." Exactly what I didn't want to hear. So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?

We could see enough of the rules to be able to make our own stuff. Just not level up the characters.

 

[SKid4]

I think #1 and #6 are effectively the same thing.

If the wizard (i.e., a spellcaster) isn't better at fighting than the fighter, the fighter can be used as the benchmark for combat effectiveness.

In other words, spellcasters are possibly being designed so that they will be limited by what a fighter of equal level can do.

We've seen this already in the fireball fixed damage example.

 

[Tovec]

In other words, the things fighters can do at high levels are equal to the things a mid-level wizard can do. Yay balance!

Sarcasm?

I don't really object to anything he lays out in the 6 point system because there is virtually nothing to say about for his 6 point system. There is no info for us to look at or discuss, just impressions to be gained.

1. He talks about being the best at fighting. We get no information on what "fighter skills" are but the fighter will be the best at them. Hard to argue with non-specifics. It is like saying "the magic caster will be the best at casting magic" and then expecting me to be wowed by the statement.

2. Fighters will use mundane abilities not magical ones. If this can be followed through so that the powers don't feel like magic ones great, but wasn't this tagline used for 4e's martial exploits too? Again, no details or specifics or anything to sink my teeth into except fighters aren't magic people ... great.

3. Fighters will be one man armies, capable of taking down 300 men and tearing off arms to defeat dragons.. but (as per 2) they will do it mundanely... They will use mundane (non-magic) exploits in epic and mythological ways. For me this goes back to them saying that fighters should be like Herculues and able to redirect rivers to clean out stables.

4. Back to fighter is the best, but not explaining how. Say monks will be equal with unarmed worries me a little. I don't expect monks (using unarmed) and fighters to be the same. I would expect them to both fight without weapons in hand but the WAYS they do it should be utterly different. It also worries me when they talk about paladins being near the fighter's level, as many seem to consider paladins to BE fighters with a conscience. Once again this part talks about "fighter skill" without giving info.

5. Fighter is the toughest, so slipping back into 4e's "defender" roll is all this seems to tell me. They get extra HP and best armor but that isn't a surprise and once again - no details.

6. OMG 6...
"A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal"
This scares me. By most definitions this either means the fighter is going to be INSANELY difficult to fight against or the wizard is going to suck. By Mearls' example it seems to be the former. To a certain extent isn't this the same trap we fell into with 4e and to a certain extent with 3e? Trying to balance the power levels out?
I mean yes it would be nice for the fighter not to be overshadowed by the wizard but I don't see why it is necessary for them to be "equal" to the wizard either. Being equal in terms of "doing as much damage" at roughly the same pace and effects as a wizard is a major issue many of us had with 4e. It doesn't make the fighter special, it makes them annoyingly similar. It doesn't make sense for the "mundane" fighter to be able to take down swaths of orcs with every blow every round all the time. It doesn't. That is part of what makes wizards so valuable is their ability to spread out damage. All this does is make fighters into wizards, except holding a sword, which is by far the wrong way to go.

Although this isn't really what he is saying in 6, he is talking about what they want to try and do, not what they have actually done or what we will be able to playtest. At best 6 gives us that the fighter will shrug off effects more easily. I guess I'm supposed to be overjoyed that I got part of something in the last line of 6 points being focused on by the WotC team - yay. (Mine is sarcastic).

On a side note: I'm really not opposed to them releasing these L+Ls (or others) but it seems like they should be giving us more to go on. Not just talking about nothing for the sake of talking about nothing.

Other side note: In terms of 3e for example, it isn't the fireballs that were the issue, not really. It was the time stopped, delayed blast fireballs that were a problem. It was the (perceived or not) issue of Save or Die. Or the Scry, Teleport and Kill combo. Or the no-save spells. Or the having a spell for anything. Or having just the perfect spell for anything. Or the random extra effects (web at lower levels). And so on, and on and on. Very few objections can really be raised about the fireball because those objections can be easily dealt with - reduce the damage or change how they work very minorly and people have nothing left to argue about. But with the NUMEROUS other objections and issues there are very few recourses. These are the ones that need to be addressed and balanced against (assuming they exist in the new edition - which I hope they do but differently). At higher levels the issue is the flying, invisible wizard throwing out group disable spells.. not fireball.

 

[Dragonblade]

I approve of everything Mearls has said.

Now bring on the playtest!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Good design goals.

Number 6 reminds me of 2nd edition: Spells are very difficult to use against the fighter.

All in all, that is what I expect from the fighter. He should be simple and effective. It was a very popular class in 2nd edition, even if all he did was jus basic attack every round. And this was mainly because he was a monster in close combat. If you were in melee the enemy was usually dead.