Kill the fighter

[Sunseeker]

I agree as long as "participate" does not have to mean 'with the same numbers/bonuses as everyone else'.

Well, assuming there are say, 12 skills, there could be 4 physical, 4 mental, 4 "skilly".
Physical classes would get the physical skills, jump, climb, endurance, intimidate.
Mental classes would get mental skills, spellcraft, diplomacy, history, religion.
All classes would get some of the other skills, dungeoneering, nature, things anyone can learn about.

So yeah, not everyone's going to get +10 to every skill, but everyone's going to have something they can bring to the table in multiple situations.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just as the bard is perfect to diplomicize the king into giving them more lutes after an adventure.

Intentional or not, "more lutes" was pretty amusing in the context of a bard asking for more stuff.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

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.

Starting from your premise, it'd be a helluva easier and more sensible to get rid of the other classes and give a fighter the options to learn these powers! Because getting rid of the fighter forces you to add 7 to 10 more specialised class. And it's already been done; Iron Heroes. Nice game, but it's not D&D.

Beside, the fighter has the easiest, best defined niche. He is... wait for it... the best fighter! Woot! If you don't mess it up, he's simply the most badass you can get with a weapon in hand.

This time, just make sure a cleric can't buff himself into superheroism and a rogue can't sneak attack so easily it's part of his standard damage and the fighter's status will be secure.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Starting from your premise, it'd be a helluva easier and more sensible to get rid of the other classes and give a fighter the options to learn these powers! Because getting rid of the fighter forces you to add 7 to 10 more specialised class. And it's already been done; Iron Heroes. Nice game, but it's not D&D.

Beside, the fighter has the easiest, best defined niche. He is... wait for it... the best fighter! Woot! If you don't mess it up, he's simply the most badass you can get with a weapon in hand.

This time, just make sure a cleric can't buff himself into superheroism and a rogue can't sneak attack so easily it's part of his standard damage and the fighter's status will be secure.

The problem with this solution is that you have to ask "What does a Fighter do?" and provide a better answer than "He fights." That answer only works in the most abstract and useless manner. How does he fight? What does the class do from round to round in battle other than "I attack," which is about as boring as it gets. There really are not that many ways to make such a class work.

If you forget the Fighter and instead focus on more focused concepts, escaping the "I attack" problem becomes a lot easier. A guardian knight can get powerful mechanics for protecting allies. A skilled fencer can get abilities for focusing against a single foe. A crazed berserker can get rage mechanics. A dragonslayer can gain resistance to elemental attacks and abilities to keep a dragon trapped on the ground. A cavalier can improve his skill at mounted combat. These are all extremely iconic kinds of things for a "fighter" to do, but a generalized Fighter class is always going to be very poor at giving proper mechanical support for any of these concepts. Well, I suppose it could, but the resulting class would be incredibly bloated and over-complicated.

Generalized classes like the traditional Fighter or Wizard can only end up one of two ways: overpowered and overcomplicated classes designed to cover every possible iteration of the concept with unique mechanics, or overly simplistic and underpowered classes that fail to capture any of the archetypes that they are supposed to represent. In older editions, Wizards were the former and Fighters were the latter. The choices to make them both so generalized and implement that generalization in opposing ways is the root of why they have been so imbalanced in the past. I'd prefer to see both classes get broken down into their component archetypes rather than see this problem continue.

 

[Hussar]

Combat isn't the only thing a fighter can do but it will be what the class is best at.

The attitude of " If I'm not the best at X then why bother trying it at all" is what needs to die in a fire.

If all classes engage in all facets of the game more or less equally then really you only have one class: adventurer, the fighting exploring,socializing machine. At least characters would have different names to tell them apart.

Hang on. On one hand you're saying that characters don't need to the best at something, but on the other, you want fighters to be the best at one thing.

And, if you read what I said, I said in the same ballpark, not "more or less equally". In other words, every class should have something that they can do in the majority of situations. The rogue sweet talks the guard while the fighter intimidates the same one, is a perfect example.

What I don't want to see is, "Your class is really good at this one thing, so, anytime you're not doing this thing, you might as well go play Xbox because you're certainly not going to succeed at being useful here."

 

[BobTheNob]

Hang on. On one hand you're saying that characters don't need to the best at something, but on the other, you want fighters to be the best at one thing.

And, if you read what I said, I said in the same ballpark, not "more or less equally". In other words, every class should have something that they can do in the majority of situations. The rogue sweet talks the guard while the fighter intimidates the same one, is a perfect example.

What I don't want to see is, "Your class is really good at this one thing, so, anytime you're not doing this thing, you might as well go play Xbox because you're certainly not going to succeed at being useful here."

What was interesting about his example was that the fighter was able to backup the rogue. Sure, hes a fighter, he fights...that what they do! But in a non fight situation he was able to contribute without stealing the show.

Then come fight time, the fighter is the main player and the rogue offers support. That is...unless you are in the camp that sais the rogue should be of equal value come fight time. In which case the fighter should be doing more than just standing there and looking angry in the non fight scenario.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

...These are all extremely iconic kinds of things for a "fighter" to do, but a generalized Fighter class is always going to be very poor at giving proper mechanical support for any of these concepts. Well, I suppose it could, but the resulting class would be incredibly bloated and over-complicated.

All you need if to have customizable class features, and 3.5/pathfinder fighter ain't half bad at that. You just need to improve on it.

But if you want to see bloated, look no further than a PHB that broke down fighter into several additional classes...

I'd prefer to see both classes get broken down into their component archetypes rather than see this problem continue.

I think we can both agree you won't get your wish, though.

More customization in basic classes, not more basic classes. That's what we'll hopefully get, that's been the trend for a long time. When you get the D&D book with the eight alternative basic fighter classes, that's when you know we are one or two years removed from 6th edition.

 

[TwinBahamut]

All you need if to have customizable class features, and 3.5/pathfinder fighter ain't half bad at that. You just need to improve on it.

Honestly, if you are going to have customizable class features, you may as well just break those features down into either separate classes or clearly defined sub-classes. Trying to force too many things into a single class in the name of customizability leads to watered down options, overly opaque class concepts, and a landmine of system mastery.

But if you want to see bloated, look no further than a PHB that broke down fighter into several additional classes...

Yeah, 4E basically killed the Fighter and broke it down into two totally different classes in the Essentials books. The Knight and the Slayer are not the same class; they're two totally separate classes. That isn't "bloat", that's a good example of what needs to be done.

As far as I'm concerned, class bloat as it is commonly described (as the creation of too many classes) is not a major issue for the game. It simply is not a problem. The real bloat comes from when a single class has a large number of rules scattered across every book and supplement produced for the game. The 3E spellcasting classes were bloated. The 3E Fighter, with its large feat dependancy, was bloated. 4E classes, which are for the most part completely self-contained, won't become bloated no matter how many of them there are. Ultimately, "bloat" is a problem of data management and organization. It is much easier to control the amount of data if you use a large number of self-contained elements to reference (small, focused classes) rather than large pools of data that are not self-contained (large, generalized and heavily supported classes).

This is why I prefer books like the Tome of Battle over things like the Complete books or the Power books.

I think we can both agree you won't get your wish, though.

Nope. Actually, the general trend across the history of D&D is in my favor. The game started with a few number of broad classes. Modern editions like 3E and 4E tend towards a much larger number of more focused classes. Across the length of 3E itself you could see the shift. 4E continues the trend even further, with things like the Knight/Slayer divide that establishes "Fighter" as an class category with no mechanical teeth.

I have every reason to imagine that, so long as the 5E design team doesn't succumb to foolish reactionist behavior, that trend will continue in my favor.

More customization in basic classes, not more basic classes. That's what we'll hopefully get, that's been the trend for a long time. When you get the D&D book with the eight alternative basic fighter classes, that's when you know we are one or two years removed from 6th edition.

You keep saying "lots of Fighter classes" like I'm supposed to think its a bad thing. I don't. I like the idea.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't know how an edit turned into a double post, but it did... Please ignore this.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Yeah, 4E basically killed the Fighter and broke it down into two totally different classes in the Essentials books. The Knight and the Slayer are not the same class; they're two totally separate classes. That isn't "bloat", that's a good example of what needs to be done.

Ah, yes, the essentials. The crap that told me 4e was on its last legs a lot earlier than I had anticipated. And how many essentials were there to cover all classes, hmm? You fit this all in the PHB how?

As dying throes go, I much prefered Combat Options and Player's Options during the last days of 2nd edition. It meant the same thing ('prepare for a new edition!') but at least I got a fun campaign out of it. Man, did I dislike the essentials. Browsed the first one, dumped it, told my players not to bother me with it. In fact, went back to pathfinder for a while.

Second editions had the afore mentioned option books and loads of class handbook loaded with kits toward the end. 3e had tome of battles and other esoteric concepts. 4e had its essentials. Some are better than other but they all mean the same thing; the edition is dying and they are milking it to the last drop until they reset it all.

On the other hand, if you want a trend, look at the fighter throughout the editions. First edition he just wacked people. Second edition had specialization, woot. Third edition had loads of feat and now you could customize a lot. Sadly, some build were much more effective and it tended to draw most players. 4e was one more step toward customizing the class.

I am expecting the trend will continue, though it might inviolve that 'modular approach' they talked about. Seriously though, if you think the fighter won't be in 5e as a base class, let's bet. I will give you good odds, too.