I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[pogre]

Mearls has stated that he has gotten the message from a lot of folks that they want the fighter to have more options. I respect that opinion and reflection, but I disagree.

Almost every table I have run has a casual or new player. They want action! They want to be involved in the game quickly. I think a simple fighter, as presented in the playtest, fits the bill quite nicely for these folks. Sorcerer kind of did these same folks back in the 3e days.

One of the possible flaws of an open playtest like this is it necessarily caters to those who are most heavily invested in the rules. Folks who really love digging into the rules and making great characters. It does not cater to those who just want to play right now without deciding what is the best option [spell, maneuver, skill, trick, etc.] for their character.

I don't think this is an either/or situation: Surely there is room in the game for a simple fighter class and a more complicated melee class.

I hope the new rules has a class for these folks. They're not going to complain if it doesn't. They just won't play it.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think "more options" is incompatible with the idea of a simple fighter. If the base fighter is simple, it just means that the player has to opt into the added complexity, say by trading a flat damage bonus for the ability to perform a maneuver.

 

[pogre]

I don't think "more options" is incompatible with the idea of a simple fighter. If the base fighter is simple, it just means that the player has to opt into the added complexity, say by trading a flat damage bonus for the ability to perform a maneuver.

Fair enough. I just hope we start with the idea of the simple fighter.

 

[functionciccio]

Almost every table I have run has a casual or new player. They want action! They want to be involved in the game quickly. I think a simple fighter, as presented in the playtest, fits the bill quite nicely for these folks.

Why not a simple wizard? Or a simple cleric?

I don't understand why the fighter, and the fighter alone, has to bear the stigma of the "class for starting players".

And... if you have a new player who wants to play a wizard?
("no sorry, you are a new player, you have to play the fighter")

And... if you have a veteran player who wants to play a fighter?
("no sorry, you are too advanced to play the fighter, play the wizard instead")

I want my standard fighter to have as many options as spellcasters.
It's ok (actually, is a very good idea) to have a simple character for the occasional new player. Just make this "simple character" option available for every class.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't think the two are incompatible. The 3.5e Warlock was an excellent class for new players, and it had options-- what it didn't have was a ton of bookkeeping attached to it.

So at 1st level, Fighters have two options-- they have Basic Attack and their choice of Special Attack, which they can use at-will. Every few levels or so, they gain a new Special Attack.

Hopefully, Fighters (and other warrior types) will gain the ability to make multiple basic attacks in a round. So players can choose between throwing two or three attacks or throwing one of their Special Attacks.

Still simple, but much more awesome.

 

[jadrax]

Mearls has stated that he has gotten the message from a lot of folks that they want the fighter to have more options. I respect that opinion and reflection, but I disagree.

All I know is that in my playtest, the Fighter is the only pre-gen that all the players have expressed and interest in playing. It has not got a less popular choice after we actually played, either.

 

[Steely_Dan]

All I know is that in my playtest, the Fighter is the only pre-gen that all the players have expressed and interest in playing. It has not got a less popular choice after we actually played, either.

Yep, us too; and the Fighter was the one to go down in our first play-test.

 

[jadrax]

Yep, us too; and the Fighter was the one to go down in our first play-test.

Same here.

We have a lovely exchange of 'Don't bother healing me, I am miles of death, kill the Kobold chief'.

Next round, fails to stabilise, loses 6 HP. 'Oh my god, heal me, heal me now!' ;o)

I quite like the 5th ed stabilisation rules. ;o)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think it's solely or even mostly about catering to beginners. I think it's that many (if not most) D&D players dislike keeping track of large numbers of abilities, managing uses per day, and having to research their options every time they take an action. Fighters are popular in part because they are not spellcasters, mechanically speaking.

A good fighter can do a finite number of useful things and do them well, without having to manage a lot of resources or track a lot of abilities. Stances, maneuvers, and stunts can easily be presented in an optional manner, and individual characters can wait to take them, and they don't have to involve laborious management of nonsensical resources.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I don't think the two are incompatible. The 3.5e Warlock was an excellent class for new players, and it had options-- what it didn't have was a ton of bookkeeping attached to it.

So at 1st level, Fighters have two options-- they have Basic Attack and their choice of Special Attack, which they can use at-will. Every few levels or so, they gain a new Special Attack.

Hopefully, Fighters (and other warrior types) will gain the ability to make multiple basic attacks in a round. So players can choose between throwing two or three attacks or throwing one of their Special Attacks.

Still simple, but much more awesome.

Could not agree with you more (well, maybe), exactly, let there be simple routes for all classes.