Giving the Fighter a Unique Identity

[matthulhu]

I can't agree with fighters needing anything special, anything identifying, or ... Anything besides a weapon, some armor, and a big hit die. Well, and good to-hit bonuses.

As someone who plays fighters almost exclusively, I've never felt they needed much; less is more, as usual. Fighters get away with being the "widest" class, by not really being tied to more than, uh, fighting. They don't necessarily presume much, besides a degree of experience doing exactly what their name implies. I can accept themes and backgrounds, without feeling they are necessary, but to give fighters moves/powers/exploits... I don't see an advantage. In fact, I know I'm not the only person who picks fighters because I don't have to pick spells, Gods, etc. Just give me the equipment list and get out of my hair!

"Boring" old fighters are right up my alley. A fighter who just rolls a die each turn means a quick combat. If narration and dishing out damage don't make the nut, perhaps a fighter just isn't for you- which is fine! We have other classes with other things to do/be. A quick combat means we can get back to seeking gold and glory. Neat. Tidy. Perfect. Ah...

The playtest fighter works for me. He's a bit beefier than I'd like right out of the gate, if anything, but then Mearls has said in more than one interview that HPs and damage are inflated in the playtest and are expected to come down as the mechanics are sorted out.

 

[variant]

Says who? I don't think WOTC has come out and said "Fighters are simple, they don't get cool stuff." "Wizards are complex, they get cool stuff."

There are some serious misconceptions here.

First off: "Simple" does not mean boring. Stances are simple and easy to play and with a good variety of them, anything but boring.
Second: "Easy" does not mean simple. Every new player to D&D should not be required to first play a fighter, then play a rogue, then work their way up to the all-mighty caster. All classes should be "easy" to play, and once again, "easy" does not translate into "simple" or "boring."

The DDN fighter isn't just simple. It's boring. It's repetitive. It's uncreative.

Players should be able to sit down at the table and say they want ease of play, clarity of play, and be "cool".

The fighter doesn't need to hit X-X-Y-Y-A-B-"Jump"-"Space" and double-click his way to success, but neither should the fighter simply button-mash basic-attack to victory.

It's been that way since OD&D. Simple means simple. Through its simplicity it is easy to organize, easy to memorize, and easy to use. If someone is new to D&D, I almost always recommend the fighter as a class that is a good introductory class. What is or is not boring is entirely subjective.

 

[Daag]

I kind of like the idea of the fighter with two themes. To me this opens up the possibilities for the class and allows them the wide focus that they've always had. It seems that allowing them two themes would lead well into treating paladin, ranger and barbarian as themes. If the fighter has two themes, then he would still make the best paladin, ranger or barbarian in terms of fighting. They wouldn't be giving up their ability to fight for being a paladin or ranger. And then the other classes could take the themes as well. A cleric could take the paladin theme to be more of a spell using cleric, or the rogue could take ranger for a more scout type ranger.

The potential design this opens up to me is quite interesting, however I realize some people may not like it. But of course, I think about the possibilities without knowing the ramifications, so only time will tell.

 

[Shadus]

Well, what the playtest does have is "improvise". So I guess the description would be that a fighter can combine "improvise" AND attack as a single action. It's vague, but then much of the rules are in this iteration.

Now instead of "just attacking" every round the fighter never "just attacks", he's always giving a sweeping leg strike that does weapon damage and allows an contest to trip, or an powerful bash to combine with a contest to push the enemy or whatever else the DM and player work out.

This is a great idea. It also works well with the narrative action D&DN seems to be going for. Just a few examples that popped in my head.

Player: I want to grab the Orc by the throat and stab him in the gut.
DM: Okay, make a strength check and then a attack roll.

Player: I want to Use my Hammer like a golf club and send the goblin flying off the cliff.
DM: Attack roll, the bull rush roll.

Player: I want to drop my weapon, Lift the Orc above my head, and toss him out the window!
DM: Grapple and strength checks.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's been that way since OD&D.

No, it uh, hasn't. You're confusing straight-forward and simple, they're different.

Fighters have a pretty straight-forward thing to do: hit things. But they have done so in so many different an interesting ways. ADEU may not have been your thing, but to say it was complicated is stretching. The Slayer is by no means complicated, but it's a HECK of a lot of fun.

Simple means simple. Through its simplicity it is easy to organize, easy to memorize, and easy to use.

Organization, memorization, and ease of use are as subjective as if it's boring or not, which I'll grant you if a subjective thing. Some folks can jump right into Vancian Wizards or clerics with no prop time, others can't.

If someone is new to D&D, I almost always recommend the fighter as a class that is a good introductory class. What is or is not boring is entirely subjective.

I never recommend classes to players until they've told me what kind of playstyles they enjoy. I've made some pretty durn complicated fighters before.

That's my primary point, a Fighter shouldn't HAVE to be the simple class. While above the others I agree it has the capability to be such, I want both of those things to be reflected in the DDN fighter, it could just be low level, but lets put it this way: Right now I feel that the 4e Slayer has more options and is overall more fun and easier to play.

 

[Kinak]

That's my primary point, a Fighter shouldn't HAVE to be the simple class.

I really hope we see a simple class (or simple version of a class) in each major character type.

A simple fighter, simple rogue, simple magic user, and simple cleric would be amazing. The fighter and rogue in the playtest seem good for that, hopefully the warlock or sorcerer will pull itself through on simple magic users.

I'm not really sure what can round up for simple divine casters, but cleric looks to be extremely varied so far.

Anyway, I don't much care if it ends up being fighter or barbarian or slayer that's easy, I just really hope we get an easy fighter-type. But hopefully players that don't want to get too bogged down will also have arcane and divine options.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Sunseeker]

I really hope we see a simple class (or simple version of a class) in each major character type.

A simple fighter, simple rogue, simple magic user, and simple cleric would be amazing. The fighter and rogue in the playtest seem good for that, hopefully the warlock or sorcerer will pull itself through on simple magic users.

I'm not really sure what can round up for simple divine casters, but cleric looks to be extremely varied so far.

Anyway, I don't much care if it ends up being fighter or barbarian or slayer that's easy, I just really hope we get an easy fighter-type. But hopefully players that don't want to get too bogged down will also have arcane and divine options.

Cheers!
Kinak

Yep, pretty much. If you like Wizards, D&D shouldn't require you start with a Fighter because there's no easy-to-learn Wizard.

Personally I should hope, regardless of how they operate, all classes should be fairly easy to learn. It's not a simplicity thing, it's just a clarity issue.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wonderhow double themes work with multiclass?

I think, the fighter should have a limited choice for the second theme (and these should have another name attached). And maybe rogue schemes should also be backgrounds which the rogue can take as second background.

And if you disallow themes or backgrounds, the rogue ad fighter are special, because they still can chose respectively.

 

[Stalker0]

Here is something simple you can do with the fighter through the use of crits.

Veteran attack.

Whenever a fighter gets a critical hit, he can apply one of the following benefits:

1) Disarm the target
2) Knock the target prone
3) Knock the target back 10 feet (must be same size or larger).
4) Add +4 damage.

Note: Veteran attack does not work against fighter's of a higher level than you.

Gives him some options, but it keeps it rare so a player isn't thinking about it all the time.

Its...."I GOT A CRIT". OH...."AND I DISARM!".

And of course is that is still too complex for some, then just use the last option there.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree that giving a Ftr an extra theme would be a bad idea!

Indeed, it's the same problem as bonus feats in 3e. Balance-wise, I have no complaints. But there should have been more feats with requirement = Fighter level X.

I think the original problem is that since the fighter is martial, players of other classes tend to think "why can't I just train in that technique and get it too?" while supernatural stuff (cleric, druid and wizard's features) are more easily made restricted.

The minimum level requirement can be used wisely to both allow other classes to dip into a few levels of fighter OR to instead motivate a fighter to stay single-class, depending on the ability at stake.

Other that this, my only other idea for the Fighter to be more attractive is to boost its combat effectiveness to significantly more than the others in terms of both durability and damage output (which I think the 5e current draft already does).