D&D 5E Hopes for the 5E Fighter

[Nebulous]

If I were going to emulate something heroic and cinematic from LotR involving a fighter, I'd want to do Boromir's last stand and death scene. That was epic.

Agreed. i don't want wuxia/anime style combat with my fighter sliding down oliphants...not be default anyway, but if that can be worked in modularly with some supplement....fine by me.

I think the 5e fighter needs a list of class specific powers just like the 3e spell lists. Give him a pool of abilities to pick from, and this is where it really needs to depart from 4e....class powers MUST do different things, and not have the same end result of just combat mechanics.

And i wonder, if the generic 5e fighter will be flexible enough to "reskin" as an Archer, Barbarian, Cavalier, etc, without having to make a new class. Maybe all you would need is a "kit" (hello 2e) that has class abilities bundled with it.

 

[Greg K]

Wait, Mearls did something good? For fighters? I'm going to have to check that out.

Yes, but it is not just a fighter book.
Chapter 1: The maneuver system. It is useful by anyone, but martial types will get the most use due to having better BAB.
In my opinion, the best part of the book followed by Fighter Fighting Style Feats and stunts

When looking at the sample maneuvers in the book or links, Called Shot, Arm
is borked. They, mistakenly, listed Ability Damage and its base modifier. Based upon the penalty to attack roll and the description, the base should be Inflict Penalty (Ability Damage inflicts Ability Damage. Inflict penalty is for penalties to rolls). This has a big difference on the Net Effect. The Effect and Net Effect lines should read

Effect: Inflict Penalty (-2 to attack rolls) -10 (penalty is -5 to your attack per -1 roll penalty inflicted)

Net Effect: Attack Roll Penalty: 0

The net effect is the penalty after the listed drawbacks. Also the sample maneuver does not tell you that on a critical hit, the penalty you inflict is increased by 1 (it is listed under the description for Inflict Penalty).

Lots of cool things that can be done under the system including:
ability damage (steep base penalty, but nasty against spellcasters if you target their main stat)

disable natural attack

disrupt special attack: making things like beholder eyes, gaze attacks, breath weapons unusable until healed. If the creature needs to use a body part (e.g., eyes or mouth) to generate or release the special attack, you can disable it. I would allow it to be used against say spells requiring verbal components (unless caster has silent spell).

knock targets prone
Knock them back
Force them back
daze them
stun them
blind or deafen opponents
sweeping area attacks

Chapter 2: The book's version of Warforged

Chapter 3: Feats
a. Arcane Battle Feats: allow fighters to do more supernatural stuff, but wizards can also take them
b. Battlemind Feats
c. Fighter Style Feats that can be taken by fighters at first level and grow

Chapter 4: Skills and Stunts
Other skill uses and using skills to do things like running vertically up walls or in combat.
There is an option is to allow Fighter types to substitute BAB for skill ranks for stunts.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I want Fighters to be consistent, credible threats at any level of combat. Tough and deadly, and capable of action-movie style stunts without shading over into ridiculous supernatural abilities.

I think they should also be (at least potentially) a very simple character to play. Where does their effectiveness come from? Their big hps, high damage and armour; if you would like fancy manouevres, stances and whatnot, that's a fine option but shouldn't be the default.

I'd like Fighters to be flexible too; the class should basically mean - "a mundane character skilled at kicking bottom", whether that be with missile fire, greatswords, shield and morning star, whatever.

I don't mind them potentially being more skilled than in previous editions - an alert fighter, an athletic fighter, a cunning fighter, whatever; you do then face a design issue of the distinction between them and rogues.

 

[Wormwood]

Agreed. i don't want wuxia/anime style combat with my fighter sliding down oliphants...not be default anyway, but if that can be worked in modularly with some supplement....fine by me.

I think that may be the most reasonable solution for 'bridging the gap', so to speak. Have 5e allow for both fighting-men and wuxia heroes according to taste.

I would have zero complains should such a system be forthcoming.

 

[TwinBahamut]

However, I very much hope you or someone like you isn't in charge of 5E design.

To speak freely, I think you've become cynical and disspirited. Now, I can't blame you in that exactly, but I do want to say that just because you've seen obvious problems go largely unsolved and ignored for years doesn't mean that no solution exists or that we must settle for something which, while perhaps fine in itself, is perhaps a solution to a problem other than the one we had in the first place.

Cynical? Disspirited? Sorry, but you're completely mistaken there. I'm actually rather optimistic about 5E. I vastly prefer to like things rather than hate them, and my wishes are closer to being a hope for positive change rather than a despair about an unfixable solution.

The real issue, I think, is that I simply have very different likes and dislikes than you. I want different things from the game than you. I have different ideas for what a well-designed class is than you. But, I think it is rather inappropriate to label either of our viewpoints with negative terms like "cynical".

There is absolutely no reason why these things can't be done in a single interesting well done fighter class. The tools are there, but among other things it requires a less hesitant, passive and conservative skills system than 3e provided. Tumble is an example of where they could go with skills having potentially relevant roles in combat. It also means accepting that skills beyond a certain level represent superheroic and not merely mundane ability - Batman's abilities at dodging out of rooms unseen, taking long cuts to end up ahead of those he chases, jumping from incredible heights without taking damage, and so forth.

There are a lot of reasons why they can't (or rather, shouldn't) be done in a single Fighter class. A big part of this is that I don't hold a single Fighter class as an ideal worth striving for. At no point in my life have I ever done so. In general, I prefer a larger number of mechanically simple classes with clear focuses, rather than a small number of 'toolkit' classes designed to be customized into other things. I think my preferred approach has more mechanical elegance and brings out the flavor of a class better.

I mean, let's look at the example of two reasonable non-magical combatant archetypes: the heavily armored melee fighter and the lightly armored archer. These two archetypes are almost complete opposites, with opposing strengths and weaknesses. The armored knight would be able to safely take many hits and is skilled at fighting in close quarters, but would be very ineffective at ranged combat. On the other hand, the archer would want to avoid close combat at any costs, but is very good at fighting from a distance. In many ways, the archer is more similar to the stereotypical Wizard than he would be to the armored knight, and the armored knight is more similar to the Paladin or Barbarian than he would be to the archer. Those two archetypes belong in different classes, not the same class.

It would take me a bit more effort, but I'd argue the same for many of the other archetypes and concepts I mentioned in the first post. Their differences outweigh their similarities, so trying to create a catch-all Fighter class simply serves to diminish your ability to create any of them.

I'll also admit that I'm not at all a fan of a 3E-stlye skill system. I'd rather see such a system removed entirely, rather than elaborated upon. I think that'd be the subject of a different thread, though.

You mean by letting non-magical characters still perform magic. This is the cynics solution to the problem, and I reject it.

...

What I said is not cynical, a solution to some unstated "problem", or a method of "letting non-magical characters still perform magic". I don't even know where to begin with this one...

Notice that we keep trending towards, "Well, if only spellcasters can be awesome sauce, we ought to let everyone be spellcasters."? But note, that the real problem is, "Everyone should be able to be awesome sauce."

Of course everyone should be awesome. Of course not everyone should be a spellcaster. That doesn't mean non-magical should equate to "basic attacks and skill checks" while magical equates to "complicated sub-systems".

Personally, I think there should be a wide variety of very different sub-systems of varying complexity and style. Non-magical warriors need to be able to do cool stuff, and things like maneuvers and powers are perfectly appropriate for that in my book. At the same time, these maneuvers and powers should work in a very different way than something like Arcane spells, which should use a different sub-system to achieve different effects with different mechanics.

I agree with you that unusual play styles shouldn't be marginalized, but in older edition's defense, part of the problem is that a mount usually is more trouble than they are worth in a many dungeons. The real problem here is the assumption that dungeon delving is the core activity of the game, and so other varieties of play don't need full support. The game should let you play the game you want to play, whether its Cossacks on the steppes of the 'Real World', or fantasy dungeon delvers in a quasi-medieval tolkien-esk consensus fantasy settings. If your campaign takes place on an virtually endless open plain, mounts are going to play a big role and the rules should support that. If you are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike, then it should support that to and not insist that, because the game has mounts that they must be just as useful (Poke-mounts) in all situations. This suggest one of the reasons I dislike the notion of a 'mounted class' and other narrow and inflexible concepts.

I'm a little bit confused here... You seem to move from disagreeing with something I didn't intend, to agreeing with important parts of what I did try to say, to disagreeing with one of my key points... Maybe I'll just talk some more about the subject and hope I express my point a bit better, then.

Mounts are not at all useful for exploring a traditional dungeon. They wouldn't have the room to maneuver needed to play to their strengths, and they might very well not even fit in the corridors. Exotic mounts like gryphons would be even more disadvantaged, though possibly still useful for other reasons, I suppose. As such, mounted combat is a trivial concern for dungeon-diving. A Cavalier class would be useless in a dungeon-focused campaign.

That said, the mounted cavalry soldier is one of the more absolutely important warrior archetypes in history. For any campaign that focuses on something outside of the dungeon, mounted combat becomes really, really important and interesting. A Cavalier class would be really useful in any of these campaigns.

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the idea that any class, class feature, or mechanic needs to be equally useful in every campaign. That idea isn't true anyways, because I don't think there has been anything in D&D that everyone wanted to use. Thinks like "poké-mounts" are a terrible solution, because they built on reducing what should be a core part of a class's identity to something optional and minor. Sure, a Cavalier is not going to fit in every campaign, but, well, neither are Elves, or Clerics.

 

[WizarDru]

Didn't bother reading past that in your post because you obviously know nothing.

Ad-hominem notwithstanding, I should have typed ALL heavy armors or just simply PLATE. Beyond that, the fact that essentials felt compelled to offer the Knight to patch that particular problem is fairly suggestive to me that they recognized a mistake.

 

[Celebrim]

You confess confusion near the end of your post, and I think it is because you are thinking I disagree with you far more than I do.

But, I think it is rather inappropriate to label either of our viewpoints with negative terms like "cynical".

I call it cynical when someone says that they want a new edition of D&D but think that the Fighter class (the Fighter class!) needs to be kicked to the curb in favor of well, something that sounds like an almost unplayable and unbalancable mess of self-contridictory viewpoints.

I'm actually rather optimistic about 5E. I vastly prefer to like things rather than hate them, and my wishes are closer to being a hope for positive change rather than a despair about an unfixable solution.

I'm actually rather optimistic about 5E as well. And in no small part because I suspect or at least hope that Monte Cook isn't going to do the sort of 4E and Pathfinder inspired stuff that you are drawing your inspiration from.

The real issue, I think, is that I simply have very different likes and dislikes than you.

Perhaps.

I have different ideas for what a well-designed class is than you.

Certainly.

I want different things from the game than you.

Probably not. I suspect from what you say that we want much the same things, we just have very different ideas of how to get there.

There are a lot of reasons why they can't (or rather, shouldn't) be done in a single Fighter class.

Feel free then to explain them.

A big part of this is that I don't hold a single Fighter class as an ideal worth striving for.

Of course not. If it could be done better with lots of class variations, then I'd support it. Problem is, we have examples of that in 3.5e, 4e and Pathfinder and it made things worse and not better.

In general, I prefer a larger number of mechanically simple classes with clear focuses, rather than a small number of 'toolkit' classes designed to be customized into other things. I think my preferred approach has more mechanical elegance and brings out the flavor of a class better.

Large numbers of classes are elegant? So, you consider late 3.5 to be mechanically elegant?

I mean, let's look at the example of two reasonable non-magical combatant archetypes: the heavily armored melee fighter and the lightly armored archer. These two archetypes are almost complete opposites, with opposing strengths and weaknesses. The armored knight would be able to safely take many hits and is skilled at fighting in close quarters, but would be very ineffective at ranged combat. On the other hand, the archer would want to avoid close combat at any costs, but is very good at fighting from a distance. In many ways, the archer is more similar to the stereotypical Wizard than he would be to the armored knight, and the armored knight is more similar to the Paladin or Barbarian than he would be to the archer. Those two archetypes belong in different classes, not the same class.

There are all sorts of bundles of assumptions in that which we first have to dismantle before we can discuss why this approach won't work. Why for example should a wizard be focused on ranged combat? Shouldn't a wizard also be able to focus on close combat, or on some thing entirely different than being 'artillery'? I think you'll find plenty of people upset with 4e pigeon holing wizards into the 'ranged support' role in the first place, and rightly so. Must we know have separate classes for wizards up close, and wizards at a distance, and wizards that do different things entirely? And perhaps some wizard in the middle so that if you want to play something more balanced and less hyperspecialized, you can play that as well? And for that matter, why can't the Paladin or the Barbarian be ranged combatants? Do we need mini-classes for the elven Paladin that hits hard with bows? For the Barbarian archer, or rock throwing warrior based off of a Polynessian archetype? Or for that matter, why should we assume 'Viking beserker' is archetype Barbarian? What about native American aboriginals mounted on horseback? Not barbarians? And for that matter, why should we assume that all warriors who channel their rage and emotion into ferocity are rural illiterates from more primative cultures? Why not elite nationalist units, or sworn temple gaurdians? Do we need separate mini classes with their own subsystems for those concepts as welll?

So, what about gladiators, axe wielders, lancers, crossbowmen, flail specialists, whip wielders, wrestlers, martial artists, blowgun wielders, boxers, knife fighters, peltasts, mounted archers, pirates, halbred wielders, fencers, sword and board, legionares, slingers, hoplites, pirates, muskateers, men-at-arms, ninjas, samuarii, knights, florentine style fencers, sumo wrestlers, charioteers, and so on and so forth. Should we have a mini-class for each concept and style? And what happens when my character concept wants to borrow from multiple classes but is forced to pick up unwanted baggage from each? What about smart fighters, cunning fighters, charismatic fighters, agile fighters, tough fighters, and on and on. Can you support each approach for all the little subclasses? I mean, surely you aren't suggesting that every knight needs to take the same basic array of attributes to play the class? What if your powers don't interact with the attributes my concept calls for? Must I be suboptimal?

Up front it takes much less effort than creating a unified class. The problem with a new class for each problem is that its lazy design. It's like solving a coding problem with a new batch of in line in place fall through code. It's simple in the short run and fixes a specific problem, but in the end it leaves you with an inelegant mess because you only fixed that one problem.

Their differences outweigh their similarities, so trying to create a catch-all Fighter class simply serves to diminish your ability to create any of them.

No, it doesn't. It only does so in your experience because the attempts to solve the problem by Pazio and WotC and others have been poorly implemented. Take the example of the archer versus heavy armor close combat specialist you are focused on. A lot of the distinction between the two can be defined very simply - one is focused on traditional dexterity roles and the other is focused on traditional constitution roles. One is mobile by virtue of light armor, and the other is hard to take down by virtue of heavy armor. We have major distinctions between the two using nothing more complex than what was available in 1e. There are plenty of tools for providing for extremely high distinction between the two even if they have a unified class.

I'll also admit that I'm not at all a fan of a 3E-stlye skill system. I'd rather see such a system removed entirely, rather than elaborated upon. I think that'd be the subject of a different thread, though.

Ok, sure. But i'd like to point out that skill systems are a lot easier to remove from the system than they are to put back in when missing, and that D&D has had skill systems since late 1e at the latest and much earlier if you count the thief as the prototype upon which the notion of skill in the game is founded. I understand why the OD&D players dislike the thief, but if you are going to reach back that far for your inspiration on how in game skill should be handled but on the other hand plan on having literally hundreds of classes in the editions long run, then I think you are imagining a game that is unlikely to unify the fan base. More people left OD&D for its lack of skills than stuck with it for its lack.

That doesn't mean non-magical should equate to "basic attacks and skill checks" while magical equates to "complicated sub-systems".

Did I suggest that it should? Tactical subsystems can be quite complex without depending on the sort of limited access balancing or point expenditure balancing that is associated with powers and manuevers. And limited access balancing which is grounded primarily in metagame needs is basicly a magic subsystem. In particular, one of the problems with associating maneuvers with a class or power, is that if this subsystem covers a set of actions that are not meant to be supernatural, there is a question of why access to the subsytem is restricted. For example, if I have manuever that is 'Judo throw foe', the question becomes "Why can't anyone pick up something and throw it? Sure, maybe he's better at it, but any 5 year old can body slam something his size." "Why can't I pick up a handful of sand and toss it in the foes eyes? Sure, he may be better at it, but can't I try?" You'll run into the problem of, "Well, you can't do that because its not a power on your class list." really really quickly if you try to address the problem through numerous classes and subsystems.

Personally, I think there should be a wide variety of very different sub-systems of varying complexity and style. Non-magical warriors need to be able to do cool stuff, and things like maneuvers and powers are perfectly appropriate for that in my book.

Powers are spells by a different name. While I'm inclined to agree with you about the utility of separate subsystems to a certain extent, at some point power subsystems are just generic magic subsystems in thin disguise.

A Cavalier class would be useless in a dungeon-focused campaign.

That said, the mounted cavalry soldier is one of the more absolutely important warrior archetypes in history. For any campaign that focuses on something outside of the dungeon, mounted combat becomes really, really important and interesting. A Cavalier class would be really useful in any of these campaigns.

Again, we disagree not about the end goal, but about the utility of having a Cavalier class be the means to get there. Let me put it this way, do you agree that a mounted warrior that rides a horse, and one that rides a gryphon, and one that rides a shark, can be bundled into the same class? Or would you prefer separate subsystems for land based mounts, air based mounts, and sea based mounts? And, if you do prefer that, then what are you going to do when those subsystems are tied to a class (rather than to the environment) and a member of another class wants to interface with them?

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the idea that any class, class feature, or mechanic needs to be equally useful in every campaign.

I never said it needs to be. But I'm equally not a fan of creating a class specificly because some campaign might occur entirely in the ocean.

 

[Celebrim]

Agreed. i don't want wuxia/anime style combat with my fighter sliding down oliphants...not be default anyway, but if that can be worked in modularly with some supplement....fine by me.

This probably going to require a different discussion, but the key question in here is not whether a fighter can slide down an oliphant, but why is he sliding down oliphants?

At some point even in a game set to non-wuxia by the DM's perferences, you are going to have a player look at his character sheet and say, "You know, I'm so powerful that I could slide down this oliphant firing arrows if I wanted to." This will be result either of mighty magic items, spells, or innate mundane skill taken to superhuman levels of ability. The question of whether this actually happens commonly rests on whether the system rewards or punishes this sort of stunting behavior. If in theory you can do it by passing skill checks or whatever, then all the system does is provide a chance you'll fall on your face and look stupid for engaging in unnecessary tricks. If on the other hand, there is some reward mechanism genericly available for performing stunts, then "Roll tide; surfs up!"

A generic mechanism like, "For each difficult atheletics check you perform prior to making standard attack, you gain a +1 bonus to hit or damage or a +1 bonus on a combat or tactical maunever check." can (granted that's a very simplistic system and I'm leaving out some necessary details) be used to plug and play the desired result. Take it out if you don't want elephant surfing; put it in if you do. It's a simple sort of optional rule.

I think the 5e fighter needs a list of class specific powers just like the 3e spell lists.

Why class specific?

Instead of arguing with you, I'm going to challenge you to provide examples. I believe for any example you show, that the I can counter by showing the game is better with a non-class specific solution.

class powers MUST do different things, and not have the same end result of just combat mechanics.

Oh I agree. But there are other ways to differentiate than result.

nd i wonder, if the generic 5e fighter will be flexible enough to "reskin" as an Archer, Barbarian, Cavalier, etc, without having to make a new class. Maybe all you would need is a "kit" (hello 2e) that has class abilities bundled with it.

Kits aren't bad in and of themselves except when they are essentially classes in disguise. But I think Pathfinder's use of fighter kits shows just why this goes so wrong ultimately. And further, if I implemented kits I would also like to see them not class specific (ala say FantasyCraft).

 

[Upper_Krust]

The 5th Edition Fighter

I think I have the perfect solution, I just did a revision of the 4E Fighter powers where I condensed everything down to 1 page but still expanded the number of powers, so I give you...

The 5th Edition Fighter?

5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Eternity Publishing

Any thoughts?

Edit: Actually I wonder if I can directly insert the image...?

 

[Stormonu]

Back in 1E/2E was there ever a reason NOT to armor up into Plate mail? I can't remember any options or kit that didn't punish you for going with the heavist armor you could afford. I don't think this even got addressed in 3E except with making a seperate class (swashbuckler) and I'm not sure if 4E broached the subject of the lightning quick unarmored fighter.


On the subject of Wuxia/supernatural moves, I'd really like to see that sort of stuff made optional or put into a supplemental book.

Vs Wizards, I think there can be a happy medium of giving the wizard enough magical abilty to hold his own, but put limitations into the system so that drawing on greater power than the "average" for that level is possible, but risky. The trick becomes keeping the game from forcing the wizard to draw on that power and abnormally risking his/her character.

One of the dial settings of the game would thus be where the power level of the game would sit. If spellcasters then draw on powers that attempt to exceed that level or expectation of ability, then risk becomes involved.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think that may be the most reasonable solution for 'bridging the gap', so to speak. Have 5e allow for both fighting-men and wuxia heroes according to taste.

I would have zero complains should such a system be forthcoming.

Yep. This is the way it's gotta be, or this undertaking just. isn't. going. to. work.

Individual gamers and tables need to have the freedom / ability to decide what they want out of any given part of the game. It's much easier to simply decide not to use/allow something than it is to say, "this is core, and this is not/optional." The key is that everything has to be presented as equal, but different options - decide which ones you like, which could include anything from only a narrowly defined selection (in any area of the spectrum), or the entire gamut, or anything in between.

 

[Aldarc]

Wait, Mearls did something good? For fighters? I'm going to have to check that out.

He even wrote the exalted Iron Heroes alt rules, which was about 6-8 flavors of Sword & Sorcery fighter classes.

 

[mneme]

I don't think Fighters having daily powers makes any sense. What can a Fighter do that they can only do once a day? They should have a pool of "power points" that recharge between encounters. What would be At-Will powers cost no points, what would be Encounter powers cost one point, and what would be Daily powers cost two points. Also, Fighters shouldn't half any more than half a dozen powers at a time. This simplifies things.

Having more generic resources is where I'm going too, but I'm fine with quasi-daily resources that represent the sort of brilliant luck that doesn't happen all the time.

Something like:

Encounter points: Let you get encounter-level effects down, represent a bit of extra effort that you can only muster a certain number of times per fight.

Hero Points: Let you through out daily effects -- Represent the crazy circumstances that sometimes let you pull off something crazy and impressive like knocking out the boss with one shot or making certain, with one strike, that everyone knows you are -the- biggest thing on the battlefield right now. Should start with a small number per day, gain one back every milestone or two, with a limitation on how many yo can spend per fight.

The concept could really work well for casters as well as fighters, but is certainly fine for fighters -- and this would also enable properly costing out improvised manuvers (and vancian casters could have a set number of spells memorized but still have to activate them with daily/encounter resources).

My preference is to also get rid of static powers -- everyone by the end of 4e was complaining about endless power lists, often ones that did exacly the same as half the other powers on your list, only a little better or a little worse. (and in 3e, we were doing this pretty much from the beginning). Instead, have characters gain capabilities that can be activated alone or in combination--so if your at-will attack did 1W and shoved the opponent back 1, maybe you can spend an encounter resource to instead do 2W and shove them back 3 -- or you could take a feat to let you instead get a +2W bonus for an encounter resource, giving you the choice of 3W and shove 1 or 2W and shove back 3. But if you instead used a trip manuver, that could also cost the same encounter resource -- or you could spend a hero point to trip, get 1W damage, and get an OA whenever the opponent tried to stand up.

 

[Greg K]

He even wrote the exalted Iron Heroes alt rules, which was about 6-8 flavors of Sword & Sorcery fighter classes.

Personally, I never liked IH. I didn't like the classes and tokens. I didn't like the skill groups. It was the start of my dislike for Mearls work that followed BOIM.

Which reminds me, in my opinion, Mearls should be kept away from naming classes

 

[Aldarc]

Personally, I never liked IH. I didn't like the classes and tokens. I didn't like the skill groups. It was the start of my dislike for Mearls work that followed BOIM.

I liked what he was trying to do, but it was a little too complicated for my tastes. Nevertheless, Iron Heroes does have a fairly good reputation.

Which reminds me, in my opinion, Mearls should be kept away from naming classes

With a 10-foot polearm.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I call it cynical when someone says that they want a new edition of D&D but think that the Fighter class (the Fighter class!) needs to be kicked to the curb in favor of well, something that sounds like an almost unplayable and unbalancable mess of self-contridictory viewpoints.

My viewpoints are not self-contradictory, thank you very much.

And yes, I dislike the Fighter class. I don't think its cynical. After all, it has historically been both a very problematic class (it was terribly underpowered in 3E, in particular) and is very broadly designed to embody simply too many incompatible ideas. It leads directly to the frustrating issue where people will both say "Why do you want that class? Isn't that just the Fighter?" and turn around and say the next minute "I don't want my Fighter doing THAT!" especially in terms of the kinds of stuff I like to see in D&D.

Feel free then to explain them.

Put simply, it's because different archetypes should have different strengths, weaknesses, and focuses, and it is pretty much impossible to have a single class that can be easily customized to match any of those strengths and weaknesses without a lot of headaches. No matter what, characters of the same class tend to have the same basic strengths and weaknesses. They tend to have the same basic "chassis" of things like proficiencies, skills, and hitpoints. There is a clear limit on how much you can change such things within a class to the extent that I want to see them changed, unless you introduce extremely complex and bloated class specialization systems (even worse than Feats or D20 Modern Talents), which I'd rather not see.

Of course not. If it could be done better with lots of class variations, then I'd support it. Problem is, we have examples of that in 3.5e, 4e and Pathfinder and it made things worse and not better.

Large numbers of classes are elegant? So, you consider late 3.5 to be mechanically elegant?

These statements of yours show exaclty how different we are. Yes, I consider many of the late 3.5E classes to be elegant, or at least more so than the 3E PHB classes. My 3.5E group completely replaced the Fighter with the three Tome of Battle classes, and it made our campaign a lot more fun. I also have no complaints about the quantity or degree of focus seen in 4E classes. I've got lots of problems with both systems, but quantity of classes is not an issue for me in the least, and I've never agreed with those who complain about an excessive number of classes.

The addition of new classes in 3E and 4E was an improvement over just having the Fighter in the PHB, no question.

Must we know have separate classes for wizards up close, and wizards at a distance, and wizards that do different things entirely?

Why not? A lot of what I've said about Fighters is also true for the generalized Wizard. I'm a big fan of the idea of creating a variety of different Wizard classes specialized in different styles, rather than a catch-all do-anything wizard. Close-combat wizard would be a great example of this.

And for that matter, why can't the Paladin or the Barbarian be ranged combatants? Do we need mini-classes for the elven Paladin that hits hard with bows? For the Barbarian archer, or rock throwing warrior based off of a Polynessian archetype? Or for that matter, why should we assume 'Viking beserker' is archetype Barbarian? What about native American aboriginals mounted on horseback? Not barbarians? And for that matter, why should we assume that all warriors who channel their rage and emotion into ferocity are rural illiterates from more primative cultures? Why not elite nationalist units, or sworn temple gaurdians? Do we need separate mini classes with their own subsystems for those concepts as welll?

I'm fine with the Paladin and Barbarian exactly because they are not trying to be generalists. They've also established themselves fairly well as iconic classes in most of the fantasy stuff videogames, comics, and anime I'm familiar with. I see Paladins with bows as unnecessary (it is a fair disadvantage, and I see little pressure to create a class with an alternative). Also, I really like the Berserker class type, but I'm fine with dropping pointless fluff like assumptions of a different culture and illiteracy (not that 4E didn't already do that...).

I don't see why we need to either artificially generalize classes that are already solid archetypes (solid archetypes that don't infringe much on others), nor do I see the need to create whole new classes for every little tiny variation.

Just know that, if you are fine with the Barbarian and Paladin as they are, then understand that I'd simply like to see more classes that function with the clear role they do.

So, what about gladiators, axe wielders, lancers, crossbowmen, flail specialists, whip wielders, wrestlers, martial artists, blowgun wielders, boxers, knife fighters, peltasts, mounted archers, pirates, halbred wielders, fencers, sword and board, legionares, slingers, hoplites, pirates, muskateers, men-at-arms, ninjas, samuarii, knights, florentine style fencers, sumo wrestlers, charioteers, and so on and so forth.

gladiators-> profession, not fighting style or class (for me, at least)
axe wielders -> You'd need to be clearer. Axes are valid weapons for a lot of classes.
lancers -> Same as Axe above.
crossbowmen -> An Archer class would be nice. Useful secondary weapon for a lot of classes.
flail specialists -> Same as Axe or Lance
whip wielders -> You know, I'd like to see decent support for whips as a fighting weapon...
wrestlers -> Monk
martial artists -> Monk
blowgun wielders -> Meh, kinda non-iconic. Random option, maybe?
boxers -> Monk
knife fighters -> Rogue, at least
peltasts -> Had to look this one up... Obsucre name for a concept I want as a class, actually. Light skirmishing non-Rogue warriors is a good concept.
mounted archers -> Archer with a horse or Cavalier with a bow. Take you pick.
pirates -> Profession, not class. You can have a Pirate with the Ninja class and I'd be fine with it.
halbred wielders -> Same as Axe, Lance, etc...
fencers -> Lightly armored melee weapon specialists.
sword and board -> Same as Axe, Lance, etc...
legionares -> Pretty much just your typical soldier... Solid Defender type, I guess.
slingers -> Archer
hoplites -> Same class as Legionnaires. Defender, then, I guess.
pirates -> You said this already.
muskateers -> If you mean musket-user? Archer. If you mean D'Artagnan? Same as fencer.
men-at-arms -> Too vague a concept to mention.
ninjas, -> Its own sneaky magic-using class.
samuarii -> Depending on what you mean, either a Knight or the same class as the fencer.
knights -> Defenders, same as Legionanaires, though a more Cavalier-style approach also works.
florentine style fencers -> Same as normal fencer.
sumo wrestlers -> Monk, if you absolutely have to...
charioteers -> Cavalier

Should we have a mini-class for each concept and style?

Nope.

I'd break up the Fighter into only a few others. A low-mobility, defense-focused heavy armor class that doesn't specialize in a certain weapon types and has no ranged weapons, a high-mobility, lightly armored melee class built around mobility that does specialize in particular weapon types, a low-mobility lightly armored class that specializes in ranged weapons, and a moderately armored and mobile cavalry class. Other classes, like the Monk, Barbarian (I'd prefer Berserker), and Rogue all help fill out archetypes too.

Up front it takes much less effort than creating a unified class. The problem with a new class for each problem is that its lazy design. It's like solving a coding problem with a new batch of in line in place fall through code. It's simple in the short run and fixes a specific problem, but in the end it leaves you with an inelegant mess because you only fixed that one problem.

Pardon me for not understanding your coding analogy (I could't code if my life depended on it), but I disagree with your reasoning. It is not lazy design at all. I merely want classes to cover reasonable archetypes and to avoid creating classes that are more generic than the norm. Many classes, like the Paladin, Barbarian, or Druid, cover a reasonable amount of ground and embody strong archetypes without crowding out others. Others, like the Fighter and Wizard, cover overly broad archetypes and do crowd out others.

No, it doesn't. It only does so in your experience because the attempts to solve the problem by Pazio and WotC and others have been poorly implemented. Take the example of the archer versus heavy armor close combat specialist you are focused on. A lot of the distinction between the two can be defined very simply - one is focused on traditional dexterity roles and the other is focused on traditional constitution roles. One is mobile by virtue of light armor, and the other is hard to take down by virtue of heavy armor. We have major distinctions between the two using nothing more complex than what was available in 1e. There are plenty of tools for providing for extremely high distinction between the two even if they have a unified class.

The problem with saying "focused on traditional constitution roles" is that creating mechanics designed to actually implement what you are talking about is far more complicated than you are admitting. And no, the solutions implemented by some of those others are not poorly implemented. Many are actually quite good.

Did I suggest that it should? Tactical subsystems can be quite complex without depending on the sort of limited access balancing or point expenditure balancing that is associated with powers and manuevers. And limited access balancing which is grounded primarily in metagame needs is basicly a magic subsystem. In particular, one of the problems with associating maneuvers with a class or power, is that if this subsystem covers a set of actions that are not meant to be supernatural, there is a question of why access to the subsytem is restricted. For example, if I have manuever that is 'Judo throw foe', the question becomes "Why can't anyone pick up something and throw it? Sure, maybe he's better at it, but any 5 year old can body slam something his size." "Why can't I pick up a handful of sand and toss it in the foes eyes? Sure, he may be better at it, but can't I try?" You'll run into the problem of, "Well, you can't do that because its not a power on your class list." really really quickly if you try to address the problem through numerous classes and subsystems.

I'm actually not a fan of codifying ever last little thing as a power or such. That said, such things do go a long way towards enabling effects that are much more interesting than "Judo Throw Foe". For example, "Slash Every Foe Within 30ft to Bits Without Taking a Step" is not at all something you can say "anyone can try", but it is a very cool and fun kind of effect that deserves a spot in the game.

Also, keep in mind that most of this is your reacting to my suggestion of a system where the main impressive physical feats and effects are not class based, and are instead open for people of any class to use depending on requirements.

Powers are spells by a different name. While I'm inclined to agree with you about the utility of separate subsystems to a certain extent, at some point power subsystems are just generic magic subsystems in thin disguise.

Nonsense. There is no natural association between complex power-style systems and magic at all. Something can use a power-style implementation and not be magical just as easily as something can use a simple attack-style implementation and still be magical. You are presuming things that are not true.

Again, we disagree not about the end goal, but about the utility of having a Cavalier class be the means to get there. Let me put it this way, do you agree that a mounted warrior that rides a horse, and one that rides a gryphon, and one that rides a shark, can be bundled into the same class?

Of course.

Or would you prefer separate subsystems for land based mounts, air based mounts, and sea based mounts?

Nope.

And, if you do prefer that, then what are you going to do when those subsystems are tied to a class (rather than to the environment) and a member of another class wants to interface with them?

Where does this come from? I asked for a decent mounted combat mechanic, and I asked for a decent Cavalier class to take advantage of that mechanic. I did not ask for a Cavalier who is the sole thing tied to a mounted combat mechanic which would cause problems otherwise. Where did you get this line of questioning from?

I never said it needs to be. But I'm equally not a fan of creating a class specificly because some campaign might occur entirely in the ocean.

Why not? If there is demand for it (and I know there are people here who love oceanic campaigns), then why should there not be supply? Knowing full well that no one is forced to use every class in a campaign (it is, in fact, the easiest thing to exclude from any ruleset), then what does it hurt? Why should it be omitted?

 

[drothgery]

Pardon me for not understanding your coding analogy (I could't code if my life depended on it), but I disagree with your reasoning. It is not lazy design at all. I merely want classes to cover reasonable archetypes and to avoid creating classes that are more generic than the norm. Many classes, like the Paladin, Barbarian, or Druid, cover a reasonable amount of ground and embody strong archetypes without crowding out others. Others, like the Fighter and Wizard, cover overly broad archetypes and do crowd out others.

I'd nitpick a little, in that the 3.x druid covered way too much ground -- to the point that the initial 4e primal classes in PH3 broke the druid into 3 classes, and then WotC backslid on that with the Essentials Sentinel. But I'm very much with you on the 'class=well-defined archetype' vs 'class=broad set of archetypes' spectrum.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'd nitpick a little, in that the 3.x druid covered way too much ground -- to the point that the initial 4e primal classes in PH3 broke the druid into 3 classes, and then WotC backslid on that with the Essentials Sentinel. But I'm very much with you on the 'class=well-defined archetype' vs 'class=broad set of archetypes' spectrum.

Yeah, this is quite true. I think the concept for the Druid is a solid, interesting archetype, but it did cover too much ground in its 3E implementation. Shapeshifting + Animal taming + Nature Priest is too much, when almost any one of those three would be good set of class abilities on its own.

 

[Nebulous]

Why class specific?

Instead of arguing with you, I'm going to challenge you to provide examples. I believe for any example you show, that the I can counter by showing the game is better with a non-class specific solution.


Oh I agree. But there are other ways to differentiate than result.


Kits aren't bad in and of themselves except when they are essentially classes in disguise. But I think Pathfinder's use of fighter kits shows just why this goes so wrong ultimately. And further, if I implemented kits I would also like to see them not class specific (ala say FantasyCraft).

thanks, i don't like to argue anyway

Well, i think there should be SOME class specific abilities for every class, and then some general overlap too. Take the 4e Fighter ability Combat Mobility (i think that the one, maybe i have the name wrong). The fighter could stop someone from moving past him with an OA. No one else in the game had that ability, it was the fighter's "thing".

The fighter should always be the best at fighting, have the highest attack bonus, and probably deal the most damage. I DO think the fighter class can be reskinned as a heavy armored tank, or a light armored archer. I think in the core 5e rules it should simple enough to make this build. The emphasis is on "Hitting hard, hitting often, dealing damage" and both those builds do that.

EDIT: And i just want to say, as is evident from these forums the past couple of days, there are thousands of D&D gamers with their own ideas of "how" D&D should best be played, and i honestly don't know how WotC expects to cater to all, or even most of us.

 

[Ferrous]

As an aside, in computing or more generally in science, a theory is described as "elegant" if it is "economic" with it's number of postulates but you can describe a large amount of observed data etc. So the theory of Evolution is a very elegant theory.

So having a small number of base classes that can be used to create a large number of character archetypes can be described as "elegant". It has a specific meaning and not just "the style of design I like".

Apologies if this is understood by everyone. I am not trying to say that anyones opinion is wrong just wqnting to clean up the debate.

As another aside, I have found that people tend to be either "lumpers or splitters" . Lumpers like me tend to be "big pictures" types who lump everything together and then describe the differences. Splitters tend to be "detail orientated" and catalogue differences. Both approaches are useful in science.