I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[jadrax]

Paladin: Same Armor, Same Attacks, Same HP, Better Saves, +Self Healing, +Immunities, +Other Magic, +Smite.

What does the Fighter bring that the Paladin doesn't?

This is an issue in some editions. Originally Paladins had a lot of restrictions. Not just Alignment, they also had restrictions on how many magic items they could own, and had to donate all their spare money to charity.

As those kinds of things have gone by the wayside, new ways of obtaining balance are needed. How 5th is planning to handle that, we don't yet really know.

 

[pogre]

Paladin: Same Armor, Same Attacks, Same HP, Better Saves, +Self Healing, +Immunities, +Other Magic, +Smite.

What does the Fighter bring that the Paladin doesn't?
<snip>
Ergo, Fighters are not absolved of being mechanically interesting in their own right.

1st edition did it through Charisma. 3.X did it by giving the fighter exclusive feats that made them better at combat. At least that's how I remember it.

Making a fighter "interesting" mechanically to a veteran player is exactly what I am against - at least at a base level. Do it through rules modules or other classes.

I completely "absolve" the fighter in this regard - go forth and kill stuff simple fighter!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1st edition did it through Charisma.

You mean, paladins had a higher required Cha score? I'm not sure that's something that highlights the Fighter's schtick.

3.X did it by giving the fighter exclusive feats that made them better at combat. At least that's how I remember it.

The exclusive Fighter feats were limited, at least initially, to +2 damage (WeaponSpec) and, later, +4 damage (Imp. Weapon Spec.). Fighters certainly got more feats, and faster, but for any given trick, you could build a Paladin or Ranger who could do it just as well (e.g., there isn't much difference between a Trip-focused Fighter and a Trip-focused Ranger when it comes to Tripping). Still, it was at least a point of differentiation!

Making a fighter "interesting" mechanically to a veteran player is exactly what I am against - at least at a base level. Do it through rules modules or other classes.

I think it'd be great if they could also do it through other classes. But, as 4E demonstrated, people will flip their schtuff if they can't use the Fighter class to play a Fighter (see Archer = Ranger in 4E), and therefore the Fighter also needs to be mechanically interesting.

I can't fathom the argument, though, that says that all Fighters must be simple Fighters. Why? Why should Fighter be the "newbie class"?

 

[Neonchameleon]

It has everything to do with the Fighter class. Traditionally, best armor, best attacks, best HP, good saves.

Therefore, the Fighter is free to take more risks, get more involved and have freedom to make the occasional mistake.

Try taking a Wizard into combat without his spells... "I throw a dart" is about as exciting as that gets.

Define "Traditionally". Because in 1e (pre UA) fighters suck. They are only marginally better at fighting than the cleric at low levels, aren't as tough, and don't really go anywhere.

In 2e, fighters gain +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and an extra attack every two rounds from Weapon Specialisation. They tear thorough the enemy like a hot knife through butter. EGG invented Weapon Spec in UA to bring the fighter up to par.

In 3e fighters are back to sucking. They get awful saves. They get piddly little feats that aren't really worth class features. And they need to face off against CoDzilla. And they are probably the hardest class to build on top of all that. Oh, and their skills suck.

In 4e they are back to rocking.

When do you take your "traditionally" from?

 

[Mark CMG]

Sounds quite a bit like the way I run things for those who want fewer rules and those who like more tactical rules -

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Playtest Update)

Thoughts as it pertains to this thread?

Combat Options

People clearly want more choice in combat, particularly for the fighter. We're going to address that by introducing a maneuver system that players can access by using themes. We're also revising the core rules to include more guidance on using the contest mechanic to resolve improvised actions and stunts.

In addition, we have a narrative combat module and a tactical combat module in the works.

The tactical module takes many traditional elements of miniatures gaming and introduces them to D&D. Facing, terrain, knockback, and so on all get a full treatment here, along with rules for morale and generic maneuvers such as grappling, trip, disarm, and so on. You can think of this as a fusion of the 3E combat rules written with 4E's approach to streamlining things.

The narrative rules module allows a player to pick a few effects that he or she would like to incorporate into an attack and translate that into a modifier to a character's basic attack. For example, you might accept an attack penalty in order to knock someone prone as part of your attack. These rules are still in their earliest phases, but the idea is to create a more player-driven system of stunts.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Yeah, the new info changes a lot. I go on about it at length here, but the short of it is:
* given that things we usually consider as maneuvers are instead located in the modules, I'm not sure what the theme-based core Maneuvers are. My guess is that they are a package of advanced techniques, similar to the schools from Tome of Battle. Still not thrilled that this is theme-based.
* I'm not quite sure how the Improvise Rules work with the Narrative Module.
* I really want to know what the TBD Fighter Mechanic/Ability is - but it seems that the "simple" fighter will be more complex than it currently is.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm not quite sure how the Improvise Rules work with the Narrative Module.

I'm guessing it is going to have a lot to do with Ability Score Checks and Opposed Checks and probably include Advantages/Disadvantages (which is essentially what I use now with what are sometimes called circumstantial modifiers).

 

[Vikingkingq]

I'm guessing it is going to have a lot to do with Ability Score Checks and Opposed Checks and probably include Advantages/Disadvantages (which is essentially what I use now with what are sometimes called circumstantial modifiers).

...right. But my point was, the description of Narrative Rules (player describes what effects they want to link, this translates into a modifier) sounds a lot like the existing Improvisation Rules. So what's the difference?

 

[Mark CMG]

...right. But my point was, the description of Narrative Rules (player describes what effects they want to link, this translates into a modifier) sounds a lot like the existing Improvisation Rules. So what's the difference?

What differences do you hope to see?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sounds quite a bit like the way I run things for those who want fewer rules and those who like more tactical rules -

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Playtest Update)

Thoughts as it pertains to this thread?

Neither the narrative nor the tactical thingy really satisfies my desires. I would like to see a "combat maneuver"-system with powers.