Kill the fighter

[Minigiant]

By roleplaying him.

I hope every DM lets a player's fighter fairly do whatever they roleplay him as being able to do.

Because they don't, the game needs to give the fighter a clear archetype and grant the fighter a system to do what the game says it can do.

One of major departures of 4E was to more clearly define the fighter. Many hated the archetype they choose but it was clearly supported.

 

[Sunseeker]

Shidaku - I'm going to disagree here. There are a number of multiclass options that a base class just doesn't do. The stereotypical Fighter/Wizard is a perfect example. You can't make either class broad enough to encompass that archetype. The four basic classes, and I hate to bring roles into things, but, I don't specifically mean 4e's definition of roles here, all have different roles in the game and always have.

That would fall under multiclassing for reasons of "theme". I want to be a front-line fighter who casts spells! Or a shadowy stalker who's a divine agent! The goal isn't to encompass every possible archetype ever, just to pull in the most obviously neighboring ones.

Multiclassing is a good way to hybridize those roles and create new options.

As it was said before I got to reply, no, it's not really. A fighter who multiclasses into a caster gains such high levels of MAD it's not even funny. Not to mention that they're now mid-level and only just picking up spells that the pure caster has had for ages.

It's a good way to create thematic builds, it's a good way to crease hybrids that already synergize through similar stats, but it doesn't create new options that are useful.

The problem is that with only 4 base classes and just kits, it would be too easy to mess up archtypes and break balance.

Lets the Ranger.
What if someone wanted to make a "3E style" ranger: a skilled light armored warrior with access to a few spells and some animal related ability.

The designers will have to design a way to:

1. Change the Fighter skill set from one of a disciplined warrior to to a naturalistic border guard
2. Find a way to give the fighter spells
3. Grant a method for the fighter to wear light armor effectively in heavy combat
4. Find a way to give the fighter nature/animal abilities
5. Balance these features along with the other "fighter archetypes" and other class features.

A lot of work for a core base class. It would probably have to involve a lot of substitutions/replacements/kits, forcing the use of feats, and probably multiclassing into a cleric or druid.

Much easier to actually make a separate ranger class. And a separate barbarian and warlord class. And a separate fighter class and give this class more clarity and it own niche(s).

Now it woouldn't be impossible to give a fighter a "woodsman", "berserker", and "commander" build but the varrior class might have too much baggage at this point to do them justice without making it overly complicated.

I'm not saying it would be easy or that it wouldn't be complicated, only that I find it to be a better solution than to continue creating new variant classes every time we want a class to have a new feature.

 

[Li Shenron]

So here is my suggestion: Remove the generic version of the Fighter, and in its place adopt a few more Fighter-like martial classes to fill the niches that the generic Fighter could fill better than the other Fighter-like classes could. A class that relies on heavy armor and heavy shields, or one that fights on horseback like a Cavalier, etc.

Never.

The fighter fights by his expert knowledge of weapons, and of combat manouvers, tactics and strategy.

Soldiers, guards, mercenaries, knights, duelists, master-at-arms are all examples of fighters that are neither barbarians, rangers, paladins, rogues or anything else. But these examples aren't enough different from each other either: a soldier of yesterday can easily be a mercenary today and become a master-ar-arms tomorrow. Thus it actually makes all sense that there is one class for all of them, because even with some specialization, the core persona is in fact quite the same. OTOH, being a ranger or a barbarian or a paladin is definitely not something that you get in or out anyday.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not saying it would be easy or that it wouldn't be complicated, only that I find it to be a better solution than to continue creating new variant classes every time we want a class to have a new feature.

No we shouldn't make a variant class everytime we add think of a new class feature. That is precisely what modules are for.

My point is that there are some archetype that would not be done just it made into a kit without making it so complicated that a new class would be better.

At this point in D&D, the ranger, barbarian, paladin, (and maybe even the warlord) have too much baggage to simply be made into a kit or class feature substitution. Especial since 5E/DDN is supposed to unite the various fanbases.

If 5E/DDN was supposed to be a whole new, "changing things up" edition, that might fly as the designers would be obligated to placate every group of fans.

But the barbarian/ranger/paladin/(warlord) have evolved away from being fighter sub-classes. Devolving it back seems to be adding needless risk or screwing up and pissing off a lot of people. It is better just to have them as separate classes.

 

[Greg K]

Or maybe instead of disposing with the fighter he could just be allowed to be useful, cool, and powerful without a horde of grognards screaming "MAGIC ANIME BULL****".

Crazy I know.

Just bring in the maneuver system that Mearls did for Monte's company in the Book of Iron Might. WIth the maneuver system, martial types can do all kinds of cool things (e.g, inflict ability score damage, inflict penalties, knock people prone, blind, deafen, stun, disable natural attacks, disable supernatural attacks (e.g, beholder's eyes). All of this by knowing where and how to attack. No AEDU or "Magic Anime Bull****" required. Plus, it gives the DM everything necessary for adjudicating these on the fly. The basics are just a few pages and everything else is sample maneuvers.

 

[Ratskinner]

After thinking about it for a while, if there's anything Wizards needs to do with classes is reduce them. The OP is right that there's a whole bunch of niche classes out there, not just for the fighter, but for every class. What's worse is that these are often so specific, that no other class gets any of the features, leading to the ridiculous level of multiclassing attempts to get a more thematic or power-build that read something like:
Fighter 1/Ranger 2/Rogue 2/Barbarian 1/Druid 4/Cleric 2/Wizard 7.

What Wizards ought to do is reduce the number of unique classes and have all the niche classes become "builds" for specific existing classes.

A Barbarian is essentially a Fighter that rages. A Ranger is a Fighter that uses bows. A Sorcerer is a Wizard who doesn't prepare their spells. A Shaman is a druid variant. Why do these need to be unique classes? All it does is lead to class bloat, spell bloat(repeated spells for different classes), feat bloat(similar feats that do the same thing but only for different classes), ect...

Why not simply have The Fighter; which you could build a Barbarian, a Ranger, a knight(non-divine caster). It would get rid of the ridiculous need for multi-classing if you could simply jump around within a general class framework of "My main purpose is to hit things!"

There are plenty of folks who want to make _no_ mechanical character choices after picking a race, class, and theme. However, I think the core of this idea can work for both ends of the simple-complicated spectrum. Bear with me:

True20 had 3 classes: Warrior, Adept (caster), and Expert (skillmonkey). Lets call these superclasses. Simple/basic classes would all be labeled as falling under one of these superclasses. Each Simple class is represented by a set of features that compose the class. If you are playing the Basic game, these features are predetermined and will level up as noted in the Simple class description. By having "hybrid" style multiclassing rules, you could fit the other classes as well: i.e. Paladin and Cleric would both be a Warrior-Adepts with different balances/selections of features from the divine Adept stuff and the Warrior stuff. Even if that multiclassing is hidden from the player of the Basic Game who wouldn't even have to think about the Superclasses at all.

When you introduce Barbarian in a straight up simple way for basic play, just note that it is a "Warrior" subclass. Features would come prepackaged in simple classes, but could be swapped to create complicated/diverse characters. The Advanced rules would provide the rules to swap mechanics within each superclass, and for creating superclass hybrid characters. Since there are only 4 superclass hybrids (AB, BC, AC, and ABC), a root for each combo (HD, BAB progression, etc.) could be specified directly.

Just a rough draft of course, I'm already guessing that there would be a need for differentiation between "Primary" and "Secondary" abilities. I know it sounds like a bit like 2e's skills and powers, but I think it could work if done right from the start, rather than attempting to reverse-engineer it.

 

[Ratskinner]

But ultimately the defining characteristics of the fighter archetype are strength and the ability the bash things, and these abilities are all you really nead.

I think part of the point is that sometimes...they aren't. DM prejudice (towards either fighters or wizards) in the earlier editions could be extreme. The same flexibility that lead to a wondrous variety of campaign worlds back in those days also left the system very vulnerable to "bad" or "incompatible" DMing. 4e severely dimished a DMs ability to discriminate amongst the classes, but also lead to that "thrash metal" comment by locking D&D into that feel. Whether that flexibility can be brought back without bringing back that vulnerability is a big issue in the design of 5e, IMO.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think the generic fighter needs to stay. But I think he needs a little love. For example I have never been fond of social skills being cross classes for some class. Why can't a fighter be able to be diplomatic.

I got rid of class skills in my 3.5 game and it didn't break anything but allowed people to make more varied characters.

I also think we need to make sure the fighter is the most awesome when it comes to well fighting. He should get higher hit points than anyone else.

I think fighters should be good at hitting things so I like them not having to confirm a crit as a special ability not at first level or if you want them to have to confirm how about giving them bonuses to hit on a crit that goes up every few levels.

I am sure there are other goodies that they could be getting to make them the best choice if you want to play a tank the person who wades into combat leaving a pile of dead bodies.

 

[Hussar]

As it was said before I got to reply, no, it's not really. A fighter who multiclasses into a caster gains such high levels of MAD it's not even funny. Not to mention that they're now mid-level and only just picking up spells that the pure caster has had for ages.

I'd point out that this is a 3e issue. Earlier edition multiclassing (not dual classing) did not suffer from this issue. Because of the xp tables, a multiclass with two classes was, by and large, only one level behind in each class from the average of the party. And, depending on the multiclass (Magic User/Thief for example) and the level, he might actually not be behind at all.

I used to think that the AD&D versions of multiclassing was a very bad idea. But, now, I'm not so sure. I think that you can use AD&D style multiclassing with the idea of hybrid classes from 4e. You could get more replacement stuff from your second class than you do in 4e, but, not to the point where you have a complete second class.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd point out that this is a 3e issue. Earlier edition multiclassing (not dual classing) did not suffer from this issue. Because of the xp tables, a multiclass with two classes was, by and large, only one level behind in each class from the average of the party. And, depending on the multiclass (Magic User/Thief for example) and the level, he might actually not be behind at all.

In the context of 5e, they seem to be saying that they're going to bring back 3e multiclassing, which is why I am concerned. 3e multiclassing was generally great for power-builders and casters, and sucked for everyone else. Which is one of the few things Pathfinder and 4e really did a good job on, making classes a solid choice all the way to 20, a system I hope 5e emulates.

I used to think that the AD&D versions of multiclassing was a very bad idea. But, now, I'm not so sure. I think that you can use AD&D style multiclassing with the idea of hybrid classes from 4e. You could get more replacement stuff from your second class than you do in 4e, but, not to the point where you have a complete second class.

I do, and don't like 4e multiclassing. I like how they've attempted to make things synergize better even between classes that normally don't. But I don't like some of the picking certain powers off an on between each class. But then that's sort of an issue with having powers at all.

I would like to see some middle ground between 3e multiclassing and 4e multiclassing(honestly I'm not familiar with older editions multiclassing). Where there are pre-built rules to help normally very different classes come together, but not simply class-stacking(perhaps some total limit on how many classes you can multiclass into.

I shouldn't have to multiclass to FIX problems with a base class. The class should work just fine, on it's own, at all times. I should have to multiclass if I want to seriously power-game or create a unique theme.