D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Remathilis]

I wasn't very clear in the argument I was making in so much that I was talking about more than one edition. The 4th Edition fighter can be a very capable ranged combatant with some work. The ranged Ranger can be a very capable ranged combatant without trying. The ranged 4th Edition Ranger who really works at doing damage from range is going to do what the hard working ranged fighter is doing and still having more left over to do even more.

Try that again. Backwards.

In AD&D, rangers were equal to fighters in archery (good attack bonus) and that was it. In UA, they both got weapon specialization (which rangers could only use in archery, IIRC). In 2e, only fighters got weapon specialization (whereas rangers got two-weapon fighting) and stayed that way til 3.5.

In 3.5, a ranger got rapid shot, manyshot, and greater precise shot at 2nd, 6th, and 11th levels. By 11th level, a fighter could have point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, weapon focus (bow), weapon specialization (bow), manyshot, and improved precise shot. Of course, he lacks favored enemies, higher skill points, evasion, animal companion, and spells.

However, what you say helps make my point. There is outcry over a wizard outclassing a rogue by using spells which can mimic skills. There is also outcry over a cleric being able to fight like a fighter and still have spells. Why is it that we don't mind having the fighter bleed into the territory that other classes are supposedly supposed to cover?

The problem is spells are 100% effective when they bleed. Knock doesn't just give a wizard a chance to open lock, it automatically wins against DC 1,000 locks! You want to fix Codzilla and Batman mages? Nerf the dang spells!

edit: I suppose I'm also asking why it's bad to give the fighter his own realm and his ranger own realm if we desire to have both classes. If the desire to have the fighter be the king of martial combat outweighs the desire to have both the ranger and fighter as classes with unique spheres of adventuring influence, it makes more sense to me to drop one of them (the ranger) and have it turned into a theme, lense, career path, or whatever you want to call it for other classes.

Perhaps because a ranger isn't just an archer. He's a woodsman, hunter, tracker, scout, monster specialist, and part-time druid. He's a very different man than the solider who specializes in archery. Aragorn is a ranger, Legolas is an archer-fighter.

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps because a ranger isn't just an archer. He's a woodsman, hunter, tracker, scout, monster specialist, and part-time druid. He's a very different man than the solider who specializes in archery. Aragorn is a ranger, Legolas is an archer-fighter.

This

 

[Argyle King]

Try that again. Backwards.

In AD&D, rangers were equal to fighters in archery (good attack bonus) and that was it. In UA, they both got weapon specialization (which rangers could only use in archery, IIRC). In 2e, only fighters got weapon specialization (whereas rangers got two-weapon fighting) and stayed that way til 3.5.

In 3.5, a ranger got rapid shot, manyshot, and greater precise shot at 2nd, 6th, and 11th levels. By 11th level, a fighter could have point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, weapon focus (bow), weapon specialization (bow), manyshot, and improved precise shot. Of course, he lacks favored enemies, higher skill points, evasion, animal companion, and spells.



The problem is spells are 100% effective when they bleed. Knock doesn't just give a wizard a chance to open lock, it automatically wins against DC 1,000 locks! You want to fix Codzilla and Batman mages? Nerf the dang spells!



Perhaps because a ranger isn't just an archer. He's a woodsman, hunter, tracker, scout, monster specialist, and part-time druid. He's a very different man than the solider who specializes in archery. Aragorn is a ranger, Legolas is an archer-fighter.

As I said, I'm not familiar with pre-3rd.

I agree that spells should work differently than they do now.

I'm fine with the ranger being a woodsman, hunter, tracker, scout; etc; etc, but -especially in the context of 5th edition- why is that a class instead of a theme or a specialty? What you've told me about AD&D makes me believe the game gave niches to both classes. I believe 4th Edition (in spite of the many faults I might find with the game) also did so. If we're talking a hypothetical edition in which the fighter can do everything the fighter can do, but then he can also still do everything the ranger can do, I ask why we have a ranger class. If you want freedom from class restrictions; if you want your wizard to be able to use a sword without taking some crazy chain of multiclassing or if you want a freedom of weapon choice beyond what classes provide when it comes to making your character -and you want those things on a regular basis, I ask why we're playing D&D.

 

[Imaro]

I'm fine with the ranger being a woodsman, hunter, tracker, scout; etc; etc, but -especially in the context of 5th edition- why is that a class instead of a theme or a specialty? What you've told me about AD&D makes me believe the game gave niches to both classes. I believe 4th Edition (in spite of the many faults I might find with the game) also did so. If we're talking a hypothetical edition in which the fighter can do everything the fighter can do, but then he can also still do everything the ranger can do, I ask why we have a ranger class. If you want freedom from class restrictions; if you want your wizard to be able to use a sword without taking some crazy chain of multiclassing or if you want a freedom of weapon choice beyond what classes provide when it comes to making your character -and you want those things on a regular basis, I ask why we're playing D&D.

I'm really not understanding when the ability to use a bow and arrow proficiently (which every edition except 4th gave the fighter) suddenly equated to having the ability to do everything the ranger can do... As to the last sentence in the above post... my preferred edition of D&D allows a fighter to be proficient in the use of the bow... It's only a particular edition of D&D that nerfed the ability of the class to use a bow, so that makes it the outlier, not the norm.

 

[MoonSong]

Perhaps because a ranger isn't just an archer. He's a woodsman, hunter, tracker, scout, monster specialist, and part-time druid. He's a very different man than the solider who specializes in archery. Aragorn is a ranger, Legolas is an archer-fighter.

Can't xp, but this

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm reluctant to engage here as there is so much clear animosity that I'm doubtful as to the possibility of anything useful coming from such an exchange. However, if the dialogue can focus on one area (the Defender questions) and we can agree on some metrics then perhaps we can get somewhere. Can folks agree on the following?

Defender's unique responsibilities:

1) Affect/Control enemy target acquisition.
2) Affect/Control enemy tactical mobility (generally correlated to 1).
3) Assuming 1 and 2 are successfully met, efficiently mitigate/survive resultant enemy damage output.

Kill enemies is not on there as it is not a responsibility unique to the Defender.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm really not understanding when the ability to use a bow and arrow proficiently (which every edition except 4th gave the fighter) suddenly equated to having the ability to do everything the ranger can do... As to the last sentence in the above post... my preferred edition of D&D allows a fighter to be proficient in the use of the bow... It's only a particular edition of D&D that nerfed the ability of the class to use a bow, so that makes it the outlier, not the norm.

My point is that I believe being good in one area should cost some ability in a different area. I also believe -if we're going to have classes- they should also each have an area they are geared toward by default. I'm perfectly fine with a character being able to choose options which change that default, and I'm also perfectly fine with one class having the ability to dabble in what other classes do.

That being said, some of the posts in this thread (not necessarily by you) and in other related threads seemed to imply that 4th Edition is wrong because it gave a more solid definition to fighters while also allowing for rangers to have theirs. I may not necessarily like the ideals the game is built upon, but I also don't necessarily view it as a bad thing as a design goal if I'm designing a game which has those two classes as core concepts.

There are also those who responded negatively to the suggestion that they write down ranger on their character sheet, but then simply just roleplay that they are a fighter. While I agree that there are things unique to a fighter and things unique to a ranger -which I then offered the solution of working something out with the GM- I see no reason why a character needs to refer to himself inside the game world in the same manner than a player talks about the character outside the game world. My point for bringing that up was to illustrate that there are still options to play the character you want to play. Behind refluffing, you can ask the GM to allow for some class tweaks; beyond that, there are also the options of multiclassing and/or hybrid classes. If that's still too much of a straight jacket, then I lean toward feeling the D&D class/race model might not be what is the best fit for the desires of the table.

Going forward, I'm looking at the concepts which were talked about as being fundamental to the next edition. I think themes and backgrounds were an excellent way to define some of the classes (ranger) while still allowing for the flexibility and customizability that you want out of a fighter class. It seems reasonable to me that a rogue could take a wilderness package if someone wants a stealthy skirmisher and hunter; a fighter could take a similar package to create a wilderness warrior. Unfortunately, what I've seen from the latest directions seems to indicate to me that we've moved beyond where doing that would be deemed (by the designers and the community) the way the game should go.

Going back to what I've said previously, I might be inclined to agree that it may have been one edition which 'nerfed the ability of the class to use a bow.' You're right, that does more it the outlier. However, it's also the outlier in that it's the only edition in which I felt I could choose fighter as my class and not feel completely useless beyond a certain level of the game. Which is more important? That answer is going to vary depending upon who you ask, but it's a question which needs to be asked.

Which brings us to the current thread...

Is the current state of the fighter the real problem or are there other areas of the game which need to be looked at? I still argue that other things need to be fixed and that the fighter will improve (as will many other classes) by those other areas of the game receiving better design efforts. If -after that- the fighter still seems to need work, it should get it, but I feel that the game is currently better served by looking at things as a whole rather than putting such a focus on just one part; a part which may not even really need fixed if some of the larger issues were taken care of.

 

[Stalker0]

In 4e, a Fighter is (with the exception of a Slayer) a Defender - and I'm fine with that.

This is one area where 4e's role labels don't really do the class justice. It is true that the fighter is noted as a defender, and does that job very well. But the fighter can also be built to be a solid striker and do great damage. The fighter is also a decent controller with dazing and blinding type manuevers (and the fact that his defender ability is basically immobilize).

The 4e fighter was actually quite a versatile class imo.

 

[Argyle King]

This is one area where 4e's role labels don't really do the class justice. It is true that the fighter is noted as a defender, and does that job very well. But the fighter can also be built to be a solid striker and do great damage. The fighter is also a decent controller with dazing and blinding type manuevers (and the fact that his defender ability is basically immobilize).

The 4e fighter was actually quite a versatile class imo.

agreed

 

[pemerton]

Well, hopefully the squishy is smart enough to move back on his turn. Seriously, is the rogue and wizard players brain dead in these scenarios? Can't they figure out how to get out of melee range while the fighter pins down the monster?

That depends a bit on initiative checks, doesn't it?

Not arguing the point you were making here pemerton, but who says all fighters need to be defenders?

No one. But [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION] said that the PF fighter can do everything the 4e fighter can do. Yet I haven't seen any indication that this true, because the PF fighter doesn't seem to have anything equivalent to punishing violation of a mark.

I assumed by duelist they meant something like the classical duel between two combatants like "duels to the death" used to be. Or basically someone who parrys, ripostes and what not to win a fight. Generally speaking the duelist is going to be in light armor and use a finesse weapon of some sort.

In 4e that could be a fighter, but also could be a ranger or (perhaps most naturally) a rogue.

I don't know about you but I know I'd be perfectly okay with a fighter (or rogue or what have you) picking up sand and tossing it in the eyes of their enemy to blind them temporarily. I would be equally okay with them poking their fingers into the enemy's eyes. The thing is, neither of these abilities require POWERS to complete them. You don't just poke someone's eyes and make them hurt once per day and after that you are done. You might prepare two bags of sand instead of one to toss into someone's eyes. Powers don't facilitate that. Neither do any form of vancian slots.

The most obvious solution here is giving the fighter some sort of "fate point" or even "action surge" mechanic! Make up for a reduced ingame power with increased metagame power.

Alright, say we've got a player who wants to blind his opponent.

If he's a spellcaster, he either knows a spell that does this (possibly with a saving throw involved), or he doesn't. He either has that spell ready or he doesn't. This is pretty clear in the rules.

<snip>

If he's a fighter, under the existing D&D rules, he hasn't got many options (as noted upthread, PF's Dirty Trick maneuver is one approach). He has to ask the DM to make a ruling. While DM rulings like this are a part of the game, I can see where this is sometimes a problem, and rules might need to cover the situation more clearly.

So what's to be done here?

<snip>

poking someone in the eye doesn't require specialized training, like a class-exclusive ability does. Anyone can do that, or at least try and have a realistic chance of success. The wizard could do that if he wanted to. Fighters might have skill that makes them more likely to succeed at blinding someone. However, I don't see that anyone is ever likely to spend a feat or other character resource specifically on doing that; it's too specialized.

<snip>

The only reason that similarly specialized and powerful options don't necessarily ruin the game when they're in a spell is because spells have limitations. Casters run out of them. Casters have to choose which ones they learn and memorize.

However, those same limitations can't be applied to fighter characters.

<snip>

One solution to this is to forget about the character and instead design the game around the player. The player can blind enemies a certain number of times or under certain circumstances, irrespective of what's happening in the game world. If the player is playing a fighter, he stabs the guy in the eye; if he has a wizard, he unleashes some sort of incantation and the target's eye is destroyed by necromantic energy. One could look at 4e's powers as a sort of mangled attempt to do this.

The natural solution is to give the fighter player more metagame power than the wizard player, who has ingame power via spells. This is what 4e powers do (and they're not particularly mangled).