Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Re: Fighter A Go-Go
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cavalier973" data-source="post: 5823782" data-attributes="member: 91595"><p><strong>Re: Fighter A Go-Go</strong></p><p></p><p>I was perusing the boards over at WoTC, and there was an article describing how difficult the designers of the new version found designing the fighter to be.</p><p> </p><p>The big question (which they put into a poll) boiled down to: should a fighter be specialized or versatile? The goal was to allow the fighter class to maintain its status as the "entry level" class for people who haven't played much or at all.</p><p> </p><p>The author described his fondness for the 3rd edition fighter, which could "fire off a few shots" with his bow before drawing a melee weapon and charging. He contrasted that with the 4e fighter which was very much melee focused. There is also the idea that the fighter could emphasize certain fighting styles (ranged weapons, dual wield, martial artist) without having to take on the extra elements that classes identified with those styles have (ranger, monk).</p><p></p><p>In my opinion, the designers of the "Essentials" line already have a structure in place to do this: Stances. That is, a fighter makes only ranged and melee basic attacks, but he can gain bonuses depending on what stance he uses.</p><p> </p><p>Take, for example, the fighter who fires a couple of shots off with his bow as the orcs charge in. Well, he could be using his "archer stance", which gives a +1 bonus to ranged attacks, and provokes no opportunity attacks. If the fighter wants to dual wield, then he switches his stance to one which gives him an advantage when he has a sword in each hand (maybe roll the damage die twice, and take the higher result).</p><p> </p><p>Of course, the rules should probably increase the number of stances a fighter gets, but there's hardly anything wrong in giving players more options.</p><p> </p><p>In my opinion....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cavalier973, post: 5823782, member: 91595"] [b]Re: Fighter A Go-Go[/b] I was perusing the boards over at WoTC, and there was an article describing how difficult the designers of the new version found designing the fighter to be. The big question (which they put into a poll) boiled down to: should a fighter be specialized or versatile? The goal was to allow the fighter class to maintain its status as the "entry level" class for people who haven't played much or at all. The author described his fondness for the 3rd edition fighter, which could "fire off a few shots" with his bow before drawing a melee weapon and charging. He contrasted that with the 4e fighter which was very much melee focused. There is also the idea that the fighter could emphasize certain fighting styles (ranged weapons, dual wield, martial artist) without having to take on the extra elements that classes identified with those styles have (ranger, monk). In my opinion, the designers of the "Essentials" line already have a structure in place to do this: Stances. That is, a fighter makes only ranged and melee basic attacks, but he can gain bonuses depending on what stance he uses. Take, for example, the fighter who fires a couple of shots off with his bow as the orcs charge in. Well, he could be using his "archer stance", which gives a +1 bonus to ranged attacks, and provokes no opportunity attacks. If the fighter wants to dual wield, then he switches his stance to one which gives him an advantage when he has a sword in each hand (maybe roll the damage die twice, and take the higher result). Of course, the rules should probably increase the number of stances a fighter gets, but there's hardly anything wrong in giving players more options. In my opinion.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Re: Fighter A Go-Go
Top