New rule of 3 . Feb 21.

[BluSponge]

Good questions. Makes me wonder if they should split the fighter up into different categories (archer, brawler) much like the Wizard has the sorcerer, warlock, etc.

I don't really see a need for that, since that is essentially what Weapon Specialization (ala 1e, 2e) does. You want to make an Archer? Fighter (or Ranger in 1e) bow specialist. Those editions didn't support martial arts and unarmed combat very well, but that could be handled just as easily.

What I've been playing around with in C&C is the concept of the fighting style, to go hand in hand with weapon specialization. The idea is a lot like building the specialist mage in 2nd ed, mixing in some of the fighter feats from 3e. In somewhat vague terms, the player basically chooses a feat track for the character to follow at an early level. I think the concept would work well with the Stances introduced in 4e, and perhaps the Rogue Talents introduced in Pathfinder. So instead of hopping on the feat train and having to worry about all the ins-and-outs, you just decide "this is the fighter concept that appeals to me and my sense of the character" and off you go. All the advancement is built in. My gut tells me to keep it simple. To date, this thread sticks pretty close to what I'm thinking about doing (and I'm drawing no small amount of inspiration from it).

Tom

 

[avin]

While support for more detailed beasties will remain:

I've chosen poorly my words, I meant there would be different ways of creating npcs

 

[Mattachine]

My hope that that 5E builds on the Essentials design philosophy, but does things to speed up combat (no tactical map requirement, reducing conditions, reducing immediate reactions, increase combat lethality), and incorporates more social feats/themes/backgrounds to be used for the exploration and role play "pillars".

Man, it's too bad that 4e didn't start with the Essentials-style rules/monsters/classes. Alas . . .

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It is not as if the difficulties with the fighter are non-existent anywhere else. They exist in the various flavors of wizard and rogue, and to a lesser extent, clerics, too. However, fighter is the one which is most prominent and easy to discuss--and in fairness, the most difficult to ignore.

However, I'd say that any solution that focuses exclusively on the fighter and continues to gloss over the same issues in other classes--is not much of a solution.

 

[jshaft37]

However, I'd say that any solution that focuses exclusively on the fighter and continues to gloss over the same issues in other classes--is not much of a solution.

Hopefully, with a simplified system, we'll have a system that's more easily hacked that way Players, Dragon Articles, 3rd parties, blogs, etc can make various archetypes/subclasses that remain balanced.

Dragon Age RPG comes to mind as far as a system that's easy to create different archetypes. if you look at dragonageoracle.com you'll see hacks for diablo, d&d, pirates, backgrounds and themes and anything else players can think of.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the error was in giving fighters FEATS rather than Martial Techniques

Because the fighter got feats, the feats had to be balanced for general consumption, not just for the fighter. They were balanced against other feats.

I think the problem was not that fighters got feats, but that the feats weren't good enough. (Also the dead levels; fighters should have gotten some non-feat bonuses on those levels).

If there had been feats that were reasonably hard to qualify for and really powerful, fighters would have remained viable through 20 levels instead of being inevitably multiclassed. A few supplements took a hack at this, but it was too little, too late.

Meanwhile, spells could have been done as feats, but were instead on a seperate list, so they got balanced against each other.

That could have worked, but it's such a break from tradition it's hard to sell that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In the article they don't mention the 4e essentials slayer - which has pretty much no powers, but can have various flavours with the choice of stances, can be melee or ranged and can put out enough damage in a relatively simply format to be effective with any weapon they choose to pick up.

Wouldn't be a bad starting point for the 5e fighter IMO.

Cheers

 

[GM Dave]

I like how PF coded into their 'fighter' certain basic benefits that fit a certain profile.

The advanced player's guide then took those basic benefits and created a series of 'specialists' that take those points and substitute in different abilities to allow a more dedicated specialist.

You have the base that is a generalist with options in feats and you have the fighters that have dedicated themselves to Polefighting, Crossbow, Brawling, or a dozen other types of combat.

That said, I think there is room for some extreme class specialists with different weapon types.

A chain fighter is not a sword and board type of fighter. The chain fighter denies space to opponents.

The extreme missile user is all in for damage and sacrifices usually armour to do it.

The light armed skirmisher does not care if he can 'mark' opponents. He does not care if heavy armour is an option.

The size small tunnel fighter does not have any thought of learning 'bash' or 'bull rush'. He's dedicated to a very different brand of combat that involves tight spaces and using terrain. He's another type of fighter that has no thought of 'marking' most opponents.

There are fighters that run a 'circus' act of beast companions instead of even 'wielding' a weapon or if they wield a weapon it is behind their beasts.

Some of these are different enough that they should be built on a seperate class or have the 'base' fighter abilities ripped out of the class to make room for what these fighter styles need to work.

L5R has a different way of representing fighters with 'schools'. The book of nine swords used this idea to create a series of styles for different fighters with different fighting methods. Each level of school was an information packet of rules but unlike feats you could not mix and match freely. You were on a path of learning when you started into a school and needed to often start over if you tried to learn another.

 

[Andor]

As I've said before, I think the key to the Fighter is in the application of modules.

The basic fighter should be the simplest character in the game.

Name, Race, Stats, HP, AC, Attack with damage. Done.

Then you have optional modules. Feats. Techniques. Stances. Powers. Iajustsu Focus. Iron Heroes token chains. Arcana Unearthed Ritual Warriors. Blah, blah, blah.

The trick is that the basic fighter is not the baseline that all that stuff builds on.

Instead that basic fighter has got some static bonuses built into his attack, damage and possibly defense that make him, on average, the equal of a fighter with the bells and whistles turned on.

You want a stance that lets your reach weapon give you area control? Awesome. Turn in your static bonus to AC to pay for it.

You want a feat chain that lets you crit for atomic damage? Sure, Lose your static bonus to damage. You now spike higher from a lower base.

You get the idea. Turning on the bells and whistles can give you a greater range of options, higher spike or situational damage, area control or the ability to punt Ninjas into orbit, but you pay for it with a base power tax that allows the normal fighter to play at the same table without feeling like a tool.

As a footnote this may depend on how the rest of 5e is implemeted. For example if the combat section has a 'cinematic rules' module that lets any character attempt any sort of thing that would have been a power or feat in an earlier edition by paying a penalty on the attack roll, then all the fighter needs to be glorious are a few 'phantom' attack bonus points he can use to pay for his stunting.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

The 4th edition fighter derives much of its mechanics from the powers system; what would the fighter look like if powers were optional? In 4E, the fighter would be left with marking or defender aura, but I would argue that the fighter's defender mechanics are representative of a play style that should be available to many different character archetypes, and not be the sole province of the fighter.

So what the Warden, Paladin, Swordmage, and Battlemind didn't exist in 4E now or what? They all had their unique defender mechanics that made them distinct and still good. Or is this the part of 5E transition where we can't say 4E had nice things at all?