Giving the Fighter a Unique Identity

[MoxieFu]

I have a novel idea. Why don't you give the CHARACTER a personality instead of defining the character in terms of game mechanix and "kewl powerz". Maybe get in a little role playing and not just roll playing.

You don't need a lot of mechanics in order for a character to do interesting things.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I have a novel idea. Why don't you give the CHARACTER a personality instead of defining the character in terms of game mechanix and "kewl powerz". Maybe get in a little role playing and not just roll playing.

You don't need a lot of mechanics in order for a character to do interesting things.

This post is boring. Boring like an OD&D Fighting Man.

The obvious answer, ofc, is, "Why not both?" But that's almost as boring as the question.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The first idea I had, and this is just crazy, is that only the fighter would be any good at all in a fight. Other classes, like wizards, priests and thieves would just be running round like headless chickens, panicking and contributing nothing.

 

[Kinak]

The more I think about stances, the more I like them. Start with a few basic ones along the lines of the Essentials fighters, include some stances that help swashbuckler-types and defenders and ranged characters, then top it off with a few more complicated ones with special maneuvers.

Selecting two or three stances would really let you choose your own level of complexity, even dialing it up and down over the course of a campaign.

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.

Absolutely.

And, as a bonus, simpler options make classed enemies/NPCs way easier to DM. Evil magic-users and priests are classic enemies, but sticking to those classes' abilities in 1st/2nd/d20 rapidly takes more effort than it's worth, in my opinion.

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.

I agree that clarity has definitely been a problem (and I think having a strong narrative explanation for how things work would help with that), but there's a separate simplicity issue. Even if you understand the 3.5 wizard, it's just far more complicated in play than a 3.5 fighter.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Nebulous]

Give fighters abilities like that. Don't just make them a stripped down, auto-attacking class that just gets more themes or feats than other characters. When people talk about fighters, they should be able to point to unique things about them, just as they do about rogues, clerics and wizards.

I agree with this. Tap into the plethora of 4e powers and tailor them to the 5e fighter, it would make them interesting and unique.

 

[Nebulous]

And along these lines, i guess the class of Barbarian could be switched to a background, and changes the gameplay of the fighter appropriately without having to make it a separate class. I think most everyone would agree that Conan the Barbarian is one of the most badass fighters out there

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's a couple issues at play here in terms of giving fighters extra "stuff", and each of them should be separated from each other before deciding what to go with.

* Unique fighting abilities (feats) versus universal fighting abilities (feats)
* Simple fighters versus complex fighters

These are two different issues, and both need to be figured out before you can start solving the problem.

As far as the first one... it really comes down to a disagreement between playstyle. Half the people want Fighters to be special combatants who know a bunch of esoteric combat maneuvers that no one else can do (the 'No' to a second Theme crowd, since Themes can be taken by anybody)... and half the people see combat maneuvers as mundane, non-magical abilities that should be allowed by anyone to train in regardless of their class (the 'no special fighter abilities' crowd.)

I can understand the disagreement. Since combat maneuvers (gained via feat) do not require any special magical connection to gods or esoteric arcane power... anyone theoretically should be able to learn how to smash someone in the face with a shield and push them back. The only downside is that it makes the Fighter class as a whole seem less interesting than the other three, because they don't get anything "unique" that only they can do. They might be better at doing the job than anyone else... but it's still a job that anyone can do.

What's the answer? Dunno. For my money... my default answer whenever the question of "uniqueness" comes up is always to say that if a DM wants some ability to be unique in his game, then he should just rule that certain things are not allowed to be taken by just anyone. Certain themes are only allowed to be taken by certain classes. So that even if the book says that any class could be a Slayer... in his game only Fighters can.

Of course... that argument always devolves into individual posters not wanting to have they themselves restrict something that the book allows... but just want the book to restrict it for them. That way "there can't be any arguments or expectations from their players".

Then in terms of the simple vs complex argument... the thing to remember is that there WILL BE a complex Fighter. It's coming. It's not here yet, but the tactics module is being worked on and it will be soon. So whatever gets added to the Fighter, you can rest assured, complexity will be an option. So the question comes down to whether "giving the fighter more stuff" should be just additional number inflation (which works fine for simple or complex fighters), or actual maneuvers that make the fighter more complex to a certain extent (as any additional maneuver, like a stance, makes something more complex by default), but in the grand scheme of complexity is still actually so simple that it could be considered a simple class. Of which Stances have been shown to probably fall into that category.

A Fighter with a Stance is technically more complex than one without... but still does not move the Fighter out of the "Simple" class designation when compared to the other classes.

 

[Oni]

I really don't want a fighter that's a bunch of prepackaged abilities.

I want a class that is tough, dangerous in combat, can protect their allies (even if that just means a that disengaging from melee is somewhat difficult), and is essentially a stunt class. Make things like tripping and disarming something that is easy to adjudicate with a nice universal system, and something anyone can attempt, and then make fighters good at it. Let them get a free maneuver in addition to the attack, that sort of thing. Let it be a class that rewards creativity, not selecting from a list (because once you start giving list of things you can do, you heavily implying that you can't do anything that isn't on the list).

I want a class that can do all the cool stuff like punch one guy in the face, stunning him, while he takes care of his friend, that can flip tables over on baddies, or kick a henchmen into his compatriots and knock them over, feint, sucker punch, wear down et c. without having to check to see if it's on their little list of powers.

 

[MoxieFu]

This post is boring. Boring like an OD&D Fighting Man.

The obvious answer, ofc, is, "Why not both?" But that's almost as boring as the question.

You may find it so but maybe everyone doesn't agree with you. Of all the flavors and variations that will undoubtedly come out, why can't there be something for those who want simplicity? Why must all fighter types have all that added complexity. Do you have a monopolistic right to your version of the game and others don't? I thought the idea behind 5e was to try and accommodate as many tastes as possible?

If there's only one way to play a fighter, that's what I find boring.

 

[imurphy943]

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.

First off: I find myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first sentence, then pulling a at "given that, let's make things slightly more complicated".
Second: I've never tried to shoehorn a new player into any class, but I definitely don't think that all classes should be equally easy to play. The Wizard is 'great power that only the very best can survive long enough to achieve', and the Fighter is the Working Man. Fighter is gritty, down-to-earth, and identifiable, Wizard is mysterious, rare, and the subject of awe.

In conclusion,
This only applies if you assume that the main focus of the game is combat, and even then it's rather shaky. Use your combat time creatively, and you'll find that where Rogues can do their 'Sneak Attack' well, Fighters are the class best suited for doing whatever you want.

The high attack bonus makes them ideal for combat maneuvers, throwing flaming oil, and using poisoned weapons. Their AC and hit points allow them to shrug off attacks that would leave any other character halfway to death.

You don't have a rogue in the party to pick this lock or disarm this trap? A war-hammer or heavy pick can total most locks, doors, and mechanical traps, and even some walls... especially if wielded by a character with Strength as their best stat.

The Fighter is unique in being the only class to have absolutely no unique abilities; it just does things that any class can do, but better. If that's not what you're looking for, play a Paladin, Barbarian, or Ranger.