D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty sure I have some posts on this very forum arguing precisely this, so yeah, I can hardly disagree. I did feel like skill challenges in general dragged in all the PCs better than 5E's skill system, too, so that helped a bit.

They provided a structure, it just really needed to be a much more dynamic structure when you played through it. There were any number of great skill challenges, but they almost always meant reaching beyond the skeleton, just, making the accumulation of success & failures map to something concrete could do it. Turn it from a sub-system to a game-within-a-game.

You're going to be mad but what really made 4E Fighter work for one of my group was the 4E Ritual Caster feat, which actually made him incredibly useful out of combat, .... (it fit his PC's background really well, which is why he originally took it).

Yeah, that's just kinda wrong. But, hey, it may well have been a legit RP choice based on Background so no reflection of the Fighter, class, there.

I dunno that that would have got him out of T5, but it would certainly have made him a lot more interesting and fun to play, especially 1-10, which was what worked best in 3.XE (as with most editions).

Oh, not out of T5, out of the game that made Tier ranking necessary. In other words, the 3e fighter was great - it was all the other classes, and the monsters, that were terrible! (Though the Sorcerer also had some design elegance and depth to it, in it's own way).

Yeah, but it's just like, somehow not enough in 5E. Having a super-high AC is something a lot of classes in 5E manage, but it was basically only Fighters and the odd Cleric who managed in 2E, and DPR was Fighterland back then. He remains, technically, the king of DPR (I think? He's certainly up there), but now instead of being essentially unchallenged, he is surrounded by angry Warlocks and Barbarians, and even others.

That's what I mean about everyone contributing in combat. The Fighter(Champion/BM), Rogue(Thief/Assassin), and Barbarian (Berserker) all contribute mainly single-target DPR. Different flavors, the fighter is tanky, the rogue opportunistic, the barbarian hulks out, but all just DPR. The Warlock, Paladin (and EK & AT &c) and others do so, as well, even full casters can if they concentrate on using the right spells the right way, but they all also do other stuff in combat, they heal/buff/support significantly, they change up the battlefield, the out put multi-target/AE DPR, they de-buff the enemy, etc...
So, like, yeah, I mentioned the Rogue and Cleric in the same breath as getting out of their protected niches and being better-rounded, but it's not like they're suddenly in the same Tier, either.

Let's be real, it wasn't really Clerics in most 2E games - it was Speciality Priests. Seemed like after about 1992-1994 either you were playing the FR or Planescape, in which case, Speciality Priest, or Dark Sun, in which case bizarre Elemental Cleric.

Ironically (it was another one of those "this would be great, in a better game" things, only that time I had tons of variants trying to get to that better game), I really liked the CPH version of creating priesthoods and used that for the second half of a campaign (that had started in 1e, with a not entirely dissimilar case-by-case customization of clerics by deity) that ended up running from '85 to '95. Two of the PCs were CPH Priests, and did very well.

 

[Garthanos]

LoL.
A Cavalier isn't just his horse - he's big hair and poetry, too!

I like all of those things...

 

[Arnwolf666]

Pretty sure I have some posts on this very forum arguing precisely this, so yeah, I can hardly disagree. I did feel like skill challenges in general dragged in all the PCs better than 5E's skill system, too, so that helped a bit.

You're going to be mad but what really made 4E Fighter work for one of my group was the 4E Ritual Caster feat, which actually made him incredibly useful out of combat, and he saved the other PCs several times with that. But er, yeah okay, I see how that looks with the casting spells and so on... (it fit his PC's background really well, which is why he originally took it).



I dunno that that would have got him out of T5, but it would certainly have made him a lot more interesting and fun to play, especially 1-10, which was what worked best in 3.XE (as with most editions).



Yeah, but it's just like, somehow not enough in 5E. Having a super-high AC is something a lot of classes in 5E manage, but it was basically only Fighters and the odd Cleric* who managed in 2E, and DPR was Fighterland back then. He remains, technically, the king of DPR (I think? He's certainly up there), but now instead of being essentially unchallenged, he is surrounded by angry Warlocks and Barbarians, and even others.

* = Let's be real, it wasn't really Clerics in most 2E games - it was Speciality Priests. Seemed like after about 1992-1994 either you were playing the FR or Planescape, in which case, Speciality Priest, or Dark Sun, in which case bizarre Elemental Cleric.

woah. There’s no way fighter could have been dpr in 2E. Everyone swears to me wizards were god on these forums.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

woah. There’s no way fighter could have been dpr in 2E. Everyone swears to me wizards were god on these forums.9

In 2E?

Wizards eventually became gods in 2E, but it was far more conditional than 3E. First off, you had to get to a higher level before it was really the case, in 2E. Second off, and this is often forgotten, you only really got spells two ways in 2E, by looting dead wizards' spellbooks and by copying from scrolls. This meant that if the DM didn't want you to have a spell, you basically couldn't have it. So many problematic or synergistic spells simply never reached PCs. There were technically other ways (spell research, for example), but they were either limited and also DM-bounded. Whereas in 3E you got spells of choice (including new spells in new sourcebooks) on level up. There were many other factors to and I could write a multi-page essay on it but suffice to say, wizards, especially Transmuters, could become godlike, but it took a smart player, the right spells, and more levels than 3E.

Whereas Fighters just needed to specialise in a good weapon, and maybe take two-weapon-fighting/ambidexterity proficiencies, and go to town with multiple attacks. Add in a high STR, either natural or often from a belt or gauntlets, and maybe a magic weapon or two and the became terrifying, especially in magic full plate (and perhaps a magic shield). Combat and Tactics made them even better. Moreso than the magic equivalent did for casters.

Rolled stats also helped Fighters more than really any other class in 2E and were the norm (indeed generous rolling variants were the norm by the mid 90s, with 3d6 down the line seen only in rare, brave cases).

 

[Arnwolf666]

In 2E?

Wizards eventually became gods in 2E, but it was far more conditional than 3E. First off, you had to get to a higher level before it was really the case, in 2E. Second off, and this is often forgotten, you only really got spells two ways in 2E, by looting dead wizards' spellbooks and by copying from scrolls. This meant that if the DM didn't want you to have a spell, you basically couldn't have it. So many problematic or synergistic spells simply never reached PCs. There were technically other ways (spell research, for example), but they were either limited and also DM-bounded. Whereas in 3E you got spells on level up. There were many other factors to and I could write a multi-page essay on it but suffice to say, wizards, especially Transmuters, could become godlike, but it took a smart player, the right spells, and more levels than 3E.

Whereas Fighters just needed to specialise in a good weapon, and maybe take two-weapon-fighting/ambidexterity proficiencies, and go to town with multiple attacks. Add in a high STR, either natural or often from a belt or gauntlets, and maybe a magic weapon or two and the became terrifying, especially in magic full plate (and perhaps a magic shield). Combat and Tactics made them even better. Moreso than the magic equivalent did for casters.

Rolled stats also helped Fighters more than really any other class in 2E and were the norm (indeed generous rolling variants were the norm by the mid 90s, with 3d6 down the line seen only in rare, brave cases).

Oh yeah. I understand the process lol

 

[Paul Farquhar]

you only really got spells two ways in 2E, by looting dead wizards' spellbooks and by copying from scrolls. This meant that if the DM didn't want you to have a spell, you basically couldn't have it.

A good example of this was the Icewind Dale CRPG (the original version, not the enhanced edition with sorcerers). You had to take whatever spells you could find and there simply are not enough scrolls in the game for more than one wizard in the party, and you would be competing for what you did find with bards.

 

[Arnwolf666]

one of the things that ticks me off about 5E adventures is the lack of opportunities to find spell books.

 

[wizard71]

The fighter is fine as is withe the various subclasses and does not need improvement. If you want more skills, play a ranger or rogue. No need to poach from other classes any more than has been done already

 

[Garthanos]

Wizards eventually became gods in 2E

Funny always seemed appropriate for any character to have that.

Whereas Fighters just needed to specialise in a good weapon, and maybe take two-weapon-fighting/ambidexterity proficiencies, and go to town with multiple attacks.

Didnt get to play 2e though I do hear some of the add ons late to the game were interesting

I saw wizards getting treasures with entire levels worth of spell books back in the day.

 

[Garthanos]

one of the things that ticks me off about 5E adventures is the lack of opportunities to find spell books.

Manuals of martial maneuvers were a real thing IRL