• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Hopes for the 5E Fighter

Wormwood

Adventurer
When I want a simple, "old-school" fighter, the Slayer is there with a dripping blade and feral grin.

When I want a "Tank" with battlefield control and durability, the Knight raises his shield.

When I want a mythic hero with abilities out of legend, the Weaponmaster grins from atop a pile of mook skulls.

I would mourn the loss of such varied thematic options in 5e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vyvyan Basterd

Adventurer
Perhaps give every spell a secondary effect, almost like fireworks bursting through the sky while a meteor is about to come through (at least for big "ritual" like spells). So the wizard deals 1d6 damages to players caught in it until the big gun comes off, and when that does they do hte actual spell.

I REALLY like this idea. And it wouldn't even be completely without precedent. Heat Metal had a growing effect, although not with needed concentration. Small pelting meteor shards for a round or two in a (possibly) movable area in anticipation of the Big Frickin' Meteor sounds cool and flavorful.

and doesnt throw the fighter into magic guy with a sword catagory *though i still think that should be an optional tree path for a warrior class*.

I would mourn the loss of such varied thematic options in 5e.

Yes. I would hope people that dislike supernatural Fighters would respect the option being available for those of us who do. With enough caveats that the choice is not only player controlled, but group of DM controlled, their inclusion shouldn't really offend anyone. I wouldn't even mind if the option was held for a supplement, making the base classes the classic archetype and adding on in a later book.
 

Nemesis Destiny

Adventurer
Yes. I would hope people that dislike supernatural Fighters would respect the option being available for those of us who do. With enough caveats that the choice is not only player controlled, but group of DM controlled, their inclusion shouldn't really offend anyone. I wouldn't even mind if the option was held for a supplement, making the base classes the classic archetype and adding on in a later book.
That's just silly. Everybody knows, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things. ;)

Joking aside, the upgrades made in 4e to the Fighter was one of the things I found most enjoyable (even though I haven't played one yet). Power selection is varied enough that you can choose between grit and gonzo. You can go from full on tactical (weaponmaster, knight) to skull cracking bruiser to archer (slayer). All with one class. I would also have liked to see Warlords rolled into the class as a type of fighter. A case can be made for just calling them Warriors, bundled under the Martial power source and rolling the Rogue in as well. Powers stay relatively the same, riders, keywords, and class features make them fill their role.
 

Mr. Patient

Adventurer
Fixing the fighter is simple, leave him as is and fix the magic system. 3e broke the fighter by making spells too easy to cast. Interrupting a wizard is insanely difficult. You have to ready a partial action to hit him when he begins casting. Even then, he gets a concentration check. This is again something Gary got right. In AD&D, the higher level the spell, the harder it is to get off. Meteor swarm takes nine segments to cast, which means it takes 2-3 rounds to cast. One hit from anything ruins it. You can't even use your dex bonus to dodge, or move at all. Now, I'm not saying 5e needs to go back to tracking segments, but some method of making spells harder to cast simply must be implemented, else the fighter will always be a torch bearer for the wizard. The other option is to give the fighter abilities that break immersion and end up being as magical as the wizard's spells. Then you don't have a fighter, you have a wizard with a sword. A method similar to WFRP could work. Not to mention being insanely fun.


I strongly agree on interrupting spellcasters. That's the best solution for reining them in, I think. Can you elaborate a little more on the WFRP method? It's a casting roll of some kind? Like Spellcraft, sort of?
 
Last edited:

What i liked about the 4e fighter:

If you strip him of all his powers, he would still do its job very well. He has a cool battlefield control mechanic.
Claims, that nothing makes sense don´t make sense at all: it is a game, and the base traits are not too unrealistic.
The fighter of 4e can exploit the fact, that you need to open your guard when you attack a different enemy.
The impression, that the fighter is a second class fighter comes from 3.5 actually, where the rogue deals his great sneak attack damage (which was nice actually) but transitioned badly into 4e strikers.
Take strikers (other than the warlock maybe) out of the system, and reduce hp of monsters accordingly, and suddenly wizards and fighters deal enough damage to e called cometent at actually killing.

I want a 4e fighter without powers (and maybe a more realistic marking system) and without strikers that overshadow his combat abilities.
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
I strongly agree on interrupting spellcasters. That's the best solution for reining them in, I think. Can you elaborate a little more on the WFRP method? It's a casting roll of some kind? Like Spellcraft, sort of?

Sure. A caster has a magic stat. It can range from 1-4 (5 if you have a familiar). Each spell has a casting number. You roll a number of d10s equal to your magic statistic. You can choose to roll less dice if you want, and it's often a good idea. If the dice total the casting number or greater, the spell works; however, if you roll doubles, you roll on a table where bad stuff happens. For doubles, it's generally something minor - a cold wind blows through the area, milk curdles, potions are spoiled, etc. Triples are bad. Quadriples are really, really bad. Think of the failure tables as wild magic on steroids.
 

drothgery

First Post
I strongly agree on interrupting spellcasters. That's the best solution for reining them in, I think. Can you elaborate a little more on the WFRP method? It's a casting roll of some kind? Like Spellcraft, sort of?
I hate to be the rat bastard 3.x/4e dead-ender on this, but allowing spellcasting to be interrupted easily makes playing a spellcaster really suck either results in people not playing spellcasters or in DMs ignoring the mechanic and playing monsters stupid (the latter being what usually happened back when I was playing 2e in college).
 

Elf Witch

First Post
Sure. A caster has a magic stat. It can range from 1-4 (5 if you have a familiar). Each spell has a casting number. You roll a number of d10s equal to your magic statistic. You can choose to roll less dice if you want, and it's often a good idea. If the dice total the casting number or greater, the spell works; however, if you roll doubles, you roll on a table where bad stuff happens. For doubles, it's generally something minor - a cold wind blows through the area, milk curdles, potions are spoiled, etc. Triples are bad. Quadriples are really, really bad. Think of the failure tables as wild magic on steroids.

As someone who often plays mages this would make me stop. I don't get the whole lets penalize one class to make another class better.

One of the problems with interrupting mages in combat comes from feats that let you add pluses to your concentration check and the ability to max out skills. If skills were reigned in then making that concentration check would be much harder.
 


Gort

Explorer
The 3E fighter could wear heavy armor without wasting a feat to do so.

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

Gort has received an infraction and been booted from this thread. No klaatu barada nikto for you. Plane Sailing, ENworld admin
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top