D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[billd91]

I completely agree with this. When it was the new, cool fighter mechanic it was a great step in the right direction. Then apparently the designers thought to themselves "if its cool for the fighter it will be cool for everyone, expertise dice all around". And now the fighters not special again.......

That doesn't necessarily bother me. I have no problem with characters that operate in similar modes sharing a similar mechanic, nor with them having some overlapping abilities. What I want to see is interesting ways for these mechanics to differ. Consider the use of combat feats in 3e. The fighter gets more than any other character giving the player freedom to develop styles broadly or in depth - probably being able to pursue more than one at the same time. Barbarians and Paladins have access to most of the same feats but no bonus feats, thus they have limited subsets of the fighter's potential to pursue. Rangers are similarly limited but also specifically given the ability to choose one of two specific class-flavored styles, giving them a little overlap but without the full potential of the fighter. I found this aspect of character design differences very interesting - still do with PF, as a matter of fact.

 

[Obryn]

No he should not.

...because...?

I mean, in this thread, there's folks who like 4e and folks who don't, and the majority opinion seems to be, "Yeah, Fighters should get to do stuff above and beyond dealing hit point damage." I've been assured - repeatedly - that Fighters in PF do just that. I know that Fighters in 4e certainly do.

Yes it is. Do you know why? Because thats what that player WANTS to do. Thats why he chose a fighter. No one put a gun to his head and said "your a fighter now or else". The fighters limitations and theme are absolutely clear even to a total noob just be glancing at the book. If they wanted to do wizard things they would have chosen a wizard. They did not. And it wasnt an accident or being a dumbass.

It was a player making a conscious choice to play a class thats simple, physical and believable rather then a magic user. Thats a choice that should be respected and possible in future editions.

Not every character needs to have powers like one of the X-men to be worthy.

Okay. Where to start. First off, leaving off the X-men thing because if you still want to argue "fightars with powerz = magic" then it's just pointless, because absolutely nobody in this thread is suggesting superpowers, magic, etc. are appropriate and thematic.

My own thought is that - regardless of mechanics - a player picking a Fighter wants to do neat fighting stuff. "Hacking away at HP tofu" is part, but does not suffice. We can go on and on about the best way to implement doing more, but IMO it absolutely has to be there.

As for picking a simple, mundane class? Well, I certainly hope the dirt-simple hack-it-with-a-sword-type, a dirt simple shoot-it-with-arrows type, and a dirt-simple burn-it-with-magic-type are options. I don't begrudge anyone any of those. It's making any of the above the only exemplar of a certain class or archetype that I disagree with.

-O

 

[timASW]

I mean, in this thread, there's folks who like 4e and folks who don't, and the majority opinion seems to be, "Yeah, Fighters should get to do stuff above and beyond dealing hit point damage."

Problem 1. Thats a completely false choice that not only hasnt existed since the skills and powers book came out lo those many decades ago, but its also a complete strawman often put forward by 4e players who think making a choice between a status effect and damage is bad design. Its not.

Problem 2. Plenty of people who play fighters DO just want to hit stuff. They may want to take power attack so they can hit stuff really hard, or whirlwind attack so they hit lots of stuff at once but it boils down to being perfectly happy being the character who just hits stuff.

Okay. Where to start. First off, leaving off the X-men thing because if you still want to argue "fightars with powerz = magic" then it's just pointless, because absolutely nobody in this thread is suggesting superpowers, magic, etc. are appropriate and thematic.

Sorry but the hyperbole goose is good for the hyperbole gander. 4e'ers who dont like it probably shouldnt have been throwing so much of it around since 2008.

My own thought is that - regardless of mechanics - a player picking a Fighter wants to do neat fighting stuff. "Hacking away at HP tofu" is part, but does not suffice. We can go on and on about the best way to implement doing more, but IMO it absolutely has to be there.

1. It IS there. And it has been since skills and powers.
2. Most of this is because you dont like fighters as previously written.

Most of this boils down to certain 4e advocates simply not liking simple fighters and trying to turn them into a class they do like.

Thats bad design to follow. The next team could take their likes, make them fit into the games conceits and give those guys a martial class, but it cant be fighter, call it whatever you want. But not fighter.

Good design would be deciding what edition they want to most closely hew to and asking people who LIKED the fighter in that edition why they liked it. And designing around the essence of that. Thats most likely going to be 1e or 3.5. And the 1e fighter is a little too simple to fit in with other classes so it has to be the 3X version.

Make some changes sure, use the PF fighter as a template instead of the 3X one for a start. But do not violate the essence of that class the way that 4e did or they will just keep everyone who didnt like 4e turned off and tuned out.

 

[Obryn]

Problem 1. Thats a completely false choice that not only hasnt existed since the skills and powers book came out lo those many decades ago, but its also a complete strawman often put forward by 4e players who think making a choice between a status effect and damage is bad design. Its not.

Problem 2. Plenty of people who play fighters DO just want to hit stuff. They may want to take power attack so they can hit stuff really hard, or whirlwind attack so they hit lots of stuff at once but it boils down to being perfectly happy being the character who just hits stuff.

My goodness. Did you miss where I said it should be an available option? I mean, you read that part enough to edit it out, so I'm assuming you did?

Sorry but the hyperbole goose is good for the hyperbole gander. 4e'ers who dont like it probably shouldnt have been throwing so much of it around since 2008.

I am facepalming now. You can't see it, but it's happening.

1. It IS there. And it has been since skills and powers.
2. Most of this is because you dont like fighters as previously written.

Most of this boils down to certain 4e advocates simply not liking simple fighters and trying to turn them into a class they do like.

Thats bad design to follow. The next team could take their likes, make them fit into the games conceits and give those guys a martial class, but it cant be fighter, call it whatever you want. But not fighter.

Good design would be deciding what edition they want to most closely hew to and asking people who LIKED the fighter in that edition why they liked it. And designing around the essence of that. Thats most likely going to be 1e or 3.5. And the 1e fighter is a little too simple to fit in with other classes so it has to be the 3X version.

Make some changes sure, use the PF fighter as a template instead of the 3X one for a start. But do not violate the essence of that class the way that 4e did or they will just keep everyone who didnt like 4e turned off and tuned out.

I like 1e Fighters just fine. In 1e, where the rest of the system works cleanly with them. (I also grew up on and still love AD&D 1e, though I know you'll find that shocking; I ran it not too long ago, and I hope to do so again soon.) So please, don't tell me what I don't like because you clearly have no idea.

-O

 

[timASW]

My goodness. Did you miss where I said it should be an available option? I mean, you read that part enough to edit it out, so I'm assuming you did?[/QUTOE]

Again a false choice. You cant have one deeply metagame class next to one without deep metagame mechanics and call them both fighter. These arent options for 1 class. They are two separate classes and they should be.

So please, don't tell me what I don't like because you clearly have no idea.-O[/QUTOE]

If you dont want people to have the impression that you think pre 4e fighters suck then you should probably stop saying how much they suck at every opportunity. Just a tip.

 

[Obryn]

Again a false choice. You cant have one deeply metagame class next to one without deep metagame mechanics and call them both fighter. These arent options for 1 class. They are two separate classes and they should be.

...because...?

If you dont want people to have the impression that you think pre 4e fighters suck then you should probably stop saying how much they suck at every opportunity. Just a tip.

I frankly don't care what impression you have - just pointing out that you know a lot less than you think you do, and that this debate isn't about what you apparently think it's about. If you go back and think on where you went wrong here with your assumptions and/or prejudices, it would help get you on the same page.

-O

 

[FireLance]

Again a false choice. You cant have one deeply metagame class next to one without deep metagame mechanics and call them both fighter. These arent options for 1 class. They are two separate classes and they should be.

You know, I could probably combine an AEDU-type fighter and a straightforward "just use basic attacks" type fighter under the same umbrella class. All you need is a class structure where the fighter gets a benefit once per level. You can even call them feats, if you want, as a nod to 3e.

So what is a benefit? Potentially anything. A fighter could choose to gain a constant +2 to damage rolls, or to gain a maneuver that deals +6 damage, but is tiring, so he needs to take a short rest to regain it, or he could choose the ability to make a massive attack dealing +20 damage that he can only regain after an extended rest. Other benefits could allow the fighter to trip, push, blind, etc. his opponent. There could be multiple ways to gain the same effect - one benefit could be that the fighter can daze his opponent every time he scores a critical hit, while another could allow the fighter to daze an opponent he hit once per day. Now, some players and DMs might not like the latter ability as it is more metagame than the former, but it would be up to them to keep it (and other like it) out of their games. To make it simpler, perhaps the game could classify the feats/benefits into "constant", "luck" (triggered on good rolls), and "AEDU", etc. Alternatively, the game might give each maneuver a variety of trigger conditions, e.g. once per day, on a critical hit, must have successfully hit the target in the two previous rounds of combat, etc.

I had hoped that 5e would be developed along those lines, since it was initially touted as a game that would allow characters in the style of different editions to play together at the same table. Get the balance between benefits right, and the simple fighter that sinks all of his benefits into constant attack, damage, and saving throw/defence bonuses, the luck-based fighter that can hinder his opponents in various ways if he rolls well, and the AEDU-style fighter with more control over when his encounter and daily powers come into play would all be viable characters, relatively well-balanced with each other, and whether or not one group or the other decides not to use any of them in play would be due to taste and not any mechanical failing on the part of the rules.

Oh well.

 

[S'mon]

I might believe the stars align for a maneuver like CaGI or Sweeping Blow only happen once an encounter, but the stars aligning for Dizzying Blow only happen once per day, every day like clockwork?

The Fighter has to reach deep into his inner core to unleash his most powerful attacks. Hence he has to rest before he can use them again. Note that he can use a Daily at 8am, , rest to 2pm, then use the Daily again, so he can use them more than once per actual day.

In fact he can use a Daily at 00:00, rest 6 hours, use it again at 06:00, faff around for 12 hours to 18:00 then rest 6 hours to 00:00, the use the Daily again, 3 times in just over 24 hours.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Obryn:

Where's that "dumb, noob" fighter that I asked for earlier? I mean you talk about how they suck etc so how about give us an example so we can set you straight.

 

[B.T.]

In fact he can use a Daily at 00:00, rest 6 hours, use it again at 06:00, faff around for 12 hours to 18:00 then rest 6 hours to 00:00, the use the Daily again, 3 times in just over 24 hours.

I'm almost certain that extended rests don't work this way.