Blog (A5E) Keeping it Classy: Updated Core Classes in Level Up

[This Effin’ GM]

That's exactly my stance about LU. I didn't want to come off as someone who dislikes it or is in doubt whether to purchase it: I was in since the first playtest material and didn't manage to be backer #1 simply because I had to enter my credit card details on KS. I love what I see and what has been done. I simply wish it to be the best of the best of what it can be

Oh we know, no worries I can’t imagine you would invest this much thought in something you hated!

Cept fighters. Clearly have a chip on your shoulder about that class IM KIDDING

I understand,.

 

[Timespike]

The analogy is really far from the point. Sorcerers are not restricted in spell schools wrt wizards. Neither are Warlocks, bards, druids or clerics.
Sure, there are some individual spells that are in a school but that a caster cannot take, yet they aren't barred from all spells of that school.
This instead is exactly what happens with combat traditions.

The restriction is also cheesable by dipping 1 level in fighter: once i take 1 level in fighter, I should have access to all maneuvers. Maybe I cannot take all maneuvers from all traditions (there's no mention about this yet in the disclosed material), but surely at least for that level you have full flexibility.

Regarding the fighter, for what I read in the preview material and comparing it to the other classes in the preview and the adept just posted, it feels really subpar. It doesn't feel an unparalleled master of any weapon, because there's no particular features that directly improve weapon use. It doesn't have the same staying power of a barbarian (rage, hit points) or probably even a paladin (spells and lay on hands). It just has a few more maneuvers, but curiously less effort than an equal level adept. The adept itself can get level 5 traditions, and I bet the same will happen with the barbarian and the paladin, so we cannot even say that he is the only one able to pull off those high level stunts.
What is the shtick of the fighter, then?

I agree that traditions as written have a link with the base class, but this clashes with the reasoning behind calling the paladin a "herald", or the monk "an adept": it forces a description. Tarzan could well be an adept with maneuvers from Tooth and Claw tradition, more than a barbarian.

Okay, there's a bit to unpack here, because you're asking questions on several fronts, so bear with me for another longer post.

I'm going to be somewhat vague here so as to avoid derailing further previews that the boss has planned, but I think I can speak in general terms without stealing too much thunder.

First, the analogy actually works better than you think it does. Your assertion seems to be that a cleric gets Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation (the "classical" schools of magic) spells even if they're not the same ones as a wizard, and the combat schools, in this line of thinking, are equivalent to the classical spell schools. That's not how they were designed. The "classical school" equivalents of maneuvers would be things like "damaging strike, defensive maneuver, evasive maneuver, hampering strike, etc." Think more along the lines of the types of roles you see represented by a spellcaster: Manipulation and trickery for a bard, healing and support for a cleric, battlefield control and blasting for a druid, etc. (By the way, those previously "implied" magic schools are also more explicit now in A5E. In addition to Abjuration, Conjuration, etc. spells are also tagged with things like Nature, Affliction, Communication, and so on, and the team has used those tags in design, but you'll have to ask Morrus if you want more specific details.) The combat schools all have offensive abilities, those that mess with opponents in some way, etc. But the flavor is closer to those new schools like Nature, Affliction, and Communication than Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, etc.

Before I continue, it's also worth noting that if you compare the class tables for the fighter (which you can see in the post here) with the adept one (which is here) you will notice that the fighter gets more than double the number of maneuvers an adept gets, topping out at 17 to the adept's 8. Fighters start out with 3 maneuvers at level 1, and get additional ones at levels 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20 whereas an adept doesn't get maneuvers at level one, pick up their first pair at level 2, and then gets additional ones at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19. By the way, heralds and rogues get maneuvers at about the same rate as the adept and marshals, rangers, and berserkers have more than the adept but less than the fighter. So the adept is essentially a "tertiary" maneuver user like an Eldritch knight or Arcane trickster was a tertiary spellcaster in O5E. The berserker is analogous to one of the secondary casters from O5E like paladin or artificer.

So in a very real sense, you are kind of asking the same thing as "aside from being good at magic, what makes a wizard special?" And like with the wizard, there are some other neat features, but they all tie back into the central focus of the class, which with wizard is "casting and knowing spells" and for the fighter is "person who is hyper-specialized in combat." The first thing I am going to point you to is the fighting style feature that you may have skimmed over. The ranger and herald classes now no longer get access to that feature like they had in O5E (and as I'm sure you know, the O5E monk and barbarian never had access to it in the first place), so that's a further point of being better at fighting than their less-focused peers. But not only is that feature unique to fighters now, fighters now have twice as many choices for that feature as the O5E fighter did, and a couple of them let them do things with maneuvers that no other class can. As you move up into higher levels on the table, note the multiple instances of Maneuver Specialization. Again, I'm not going to get into specifics right now, but there's clearly something going on there that represents a higher-than-normal level of skill with maneuvers than the other martial classes get. And in addition, a lot of the fighter's exploration and social pillar abilities are really strongly flavored toward a truly masterful warrior. Think about some of the stuff that character type can do in media: they're good at menacing people with a glance, sizing up threats, staying on alert for long periods of time (google the "cooper color code" if you're not familiar with that real-world military/law enforcement guide to different levels of situational awareness) and so on. Indomitable now also has two additional use options in addition to the one it had in O5E and those are pretty cool. They're both the sort of thing that you will get plenty of opportunities to use, as well, not some kind of highly-situational thing.

If what you want to play is a "pure" warrior like a Spartan, samurai, the archetypal non-holy knight, a Welsh longbowman, or a Roman legionary or gladiator, you really do want to build them as a fighter. Every tiny aspect, every exploration knack, every social pillar ability feeds back into the concept of someone who has absolutely mastered the art of pure combat skill. I really wish I could be more specific, but I'll say this in summation and for emphasis: don't assume that new abilities do nothing, and don't assume that abilities that overlap with the O5E fighter only do what they used to do. As I was composing this reply, I sat here with the O5E SRD open in one tab and the new A5E fighter rules open in another so I could compare. It is quite an upgrade.

 

[Timespike]

I'll throw this in too, with the full acknowledgement that it's purely subjective:

I've never been all that enthusiastic about the idea of playing a fighter for most of my D&D career (which started back in 2000) ... until I saw the Level Up fighter. It's still not going to be my very first A5E PC (that's going to be a herald/bard with the Proclaimer synergy feats) but It'll probably be one of the first five.

 

[Timespike]

Argh, I keep thinking of more stuff.

With specific regard to staying power: there are maneuvers that help with that, and I alluded to another example of something else that improves it pretty noticeably in the big post, too, though I'm going to leave what, specifically a bit vague for the moment.

And Tarzan is almost certainly a ranger/adept. He's got at least as much skill surviving in (and traversing) the wilderness with nothing but his wits as he does fighting unarmed, so you'd want both of those classes, particularly for the exploration pillar abilities.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

side note: I know I’m in the minority but I love fighters. They are more to me the every man than the rogue often is portrayed as. I judge most systems as to “how much fun is the fighter to play”

 

[Timespike]

side note: I know I’m in the minority but I love fighters. They are more to me the every man than the rogue often is portrayed as. I judge most systems as to “how much fun is the fighter to play”

I've always liked fighter-type characters in media, I just never really got the full sense of them with a d20 fantasy fighter class before this one.

 

[lichmaster]

Okay, there's a bit to unpack here, because you're asking questions on several fronts, so bear with me for another longer post.

I'm going to be somewhat vague here so as to avoid derailing further previews that the boss has planned, but I think I can speak in general terms without stealing too much thunder.

This is great, thanks for your longer winded answers. I understand you cannot display your cards yet, although you probably really want to

First, the analogy actually works better than you think it does. Your assertion seems to be that a cleric gets Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation (the "classical" schools of magic) spells even if they're not the same ones as a wizard, and the combat schools, in this line of thinking, are equivalent to the classical spell schools. That's not how they were designed. The "classical school" equivalents of maneuvers would be things like "damaging strike, defensive maneuver, evasive maneuver, hampering strike, etc." Think more along the lines of the types of roles you see represented by a spellcaster: Manipulation and trickery for a bard, healing and support for a cleric, battlefield control and blasting for a druid, etc. (By the way, those previously "implied" magic schools are also more explicit now in A5E. In addition to Abjuration, Conjuration, etc. spells are also tagged with things like Nature, Affliction, Communication, and so on, and the team has used those tags in design, but you'll have to ask Morrus if you want more specific details.) The combat schools all have offensive abilities, those that mess with opponents in some way, etc. But the flavor is closer to those new schools like Nature, Affliction, and Communication than Abjuration, Conjuration, divination, etc.

This is interesting. I remember I read more than once that traditions were compared to magic schools, and I knew you were also using other "tags" on spells alongside the classic schools, but I don't know how far the implications of the new tagging system goes. With this kind of description as "damage, crowd control, movement", etc, the distinction is more clear (and way more practical than the traditional ones). I think most caster classes still have at least limited access to most of these new tags, but we'll see how far that goes. I mean, a druid for sure has "damage" as a tag, but probably no fireball. There's overlap but is not complete.

Before I continue, it's also worth noting that if you compare the class tables for the fighter (which you can see in the post here) with the adept one (which is here) you will notice that the fighter gets more than double the number of maneuvers an adept gets, topping out at 17 to the adept's 8. Fighters start out with 3 maneuvers at level 1, and get additional ones at levels 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20 whereas an adept doesn't get maneuvers at level one, pick up their first pair at level 2, and then gets additional ones at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19. By the way, heralds and rogues get maneuvers at about the same rate as the adept and marshals, rangers, and berserkers have more than the adept but less than the fighter. So the adept is essentially a "tertiary" maneuver user like an Eldritch knight or Arcane trickster was a tertiary spellcaster in O5E. The berserker is analogous to one of the secondary casters from O5E like paladin or artificer.

Ok. The fighter has a lot of choice, not just as potential maneuvers learnable, but also as actually "prepared" maneuvers.
One thing I was noticing is that the adept has more exertion (to fuel the focus features, but can also be used for maneuvers). Maybe this will be offset somehow by some of the other class features (maybe reducing the exertion cost, or giving some maneuvers for free once every short rest), but barring this, the fighter would have to be much more careful with resource management or would risk of burning all exertion without being able to all use the tricks he knows,

So in a very real sense, you are kind of asking the same thing as "aside from being good at magic, what makes a wizard special?" And like with the wizard, there are some other neat features, but they all tie back into the central focus of the class, which with wizard is "casting and knowing spells" and for the fighter is "person who is hyper-specialized in combat." The first thing I am going to point you to is the fighting style feature that you may have skimmed over. The ranger and herald classes now no longer get access to that feature like they had in O5E (and as I'm sure you know, the O5E monk and barbarian never had access to it in the first place), so that's a further point of being better at fighting than their less-focused peers. But not only is that feature unique to fighters now, fighters now have twice as many choices for that feature as the O5E fighter did, and a couple of them let them do things with maneuvers that no other class can.

These are very good points. I didn't notice the herald lost the fighting stile! If the fighter is the only class to have that feature, it makes it unique in that martial aspect.
Now you tell me that there are twice as many choices for the fighting style, and some of them are directly tied to do things with maneuvers no other class can. Thus not just variety, but just being the very best at that, exactly what I was looking for.

As you move up into higher levels on the table, note the multiple instances of Maneuver Specialization. Again, I'm not going to get into specifics right now, but there's clearly something going on there that represents a higher-than-normal level of skill with maneuvers than the other martial classes get. And in addition, a lot of the fighter's exploration and social pillar abilities are really strongly flavored toward a truly masterful warrior. Think about some of the stuff that character type can do in media: they're good at menacing people with a glance, sizing up threats, staying on alert for long periods of time (google the "cooper color code" if you're not familiar with that real-world military/law enforcement guide to different levels of situational awareness) and so on. Indomitable now also has two additional use options in addition to the one it had in O5E and those are pretty cool. They're both the sort of thing that you will get plenty of opportunities to use, as well, not some kind of highly-situational thing.

The addition of social and exploration knacks is very important, as it flashes out the character. Indomitable was already super cool in o5e, and if now is even less situational that's awesome.

If what you want to play is a "pure" warrior like a Spartan, samurai, the archetypal non-holy knight, a Welsh longbowman, or a Roman legionary or gladiator, you really do want to build them as a fighter. Every tiny aspect, every exploration knack, every social pillar ability feeds back into the concept of someone who has absolutely mastered the art of pure combat skill. I really wish I could be more specific, but I'll say this in summation and for emphasis: don't assume that new abilities do nothing, and don't assume that abilities that overlap with the O5E fighter only do what they used to do. As I was composing this reply, I sat here with the O5E SRD open in one tab and the new A5E fighter rules open in another so I could compare. It is quite an upgrade.

Awesome! You see, the blog post told quite well what were the novelties and design choices for the herald, druid and warlock. But for the fighter, there wasn't much except that he got a wider list of maneuvers and could use them a bit more often. Didn't feel particularly unique. Now with the improved fighting styles, combat maneuver mastery and improved Indomitable, I'm really curious how it will be

 

[lichmaster]

I'll throw this in too, with the full acknowledgement that it's purely subjective:

I've never been all that enthusiastic about the idea of playing a fighter for most of my D&D career (which started back in 2000) ... until I saw the Level Up fighter. It's still not going to be my very first A5E PC (that's going to be a herald/bard with the Proclaimer synergy feats) but It'll probably be one of the first five.

Haha, I played some in the late 90s with AD&D 2nd edition. Apart from weapon specialization, good saves and a few more extra attacks per round, they literally had nothing! But I was still having fun!

 

[lichmaster]

Argh, I keep thinking of more stuff.

With specific regard to staying power: there are maneuvers that help with that, and I alluded to another example of something else that improves it pretty noticeably in the big post, too, though I'm going to leave what, specifically a bit vague for the moment.

And Tarzan is almost certainly a ranger/adept. He's got at least as much skill surviving in (and traversing) the wilderness with nothing but his wits as he does fighting unarmed, so you'd want both of those classes, particularly for the exploration pillar abilities.

For the exploration pillars the ranger would definitely help. But I see a Tarzan like character being hyper developed from a physical and instinctual point of view. Gets respect from the animals not from a mystical bond, but because they see him as "one of them" and respect him for his fighting skills (the Wilderness training together with Battlefield Etiquette do wonders here). And apart maybe from an improvised spear, he fights with his bare hands, teeth and claws. I'll have to see how the new ranger shapes up, but this character may not need many levels in ranger, maybe not even one

 

[lichmaster]

I've always liked fighter-type characters in media, I just never really got the full sense of them with a d20 fantasy fighter class before this one.

If you read Berserk, you'd probably wanted to play some similar character
I remember my NWN2 Berserk Clone: Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berserk/Weapon Master, with all the feats to be the ultimate master in two handed sword, critting with 15-20x4, supreme power attack, supreme cleave, etc. That was fun!