Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 8089716" data-attributes="member: 7015698">Ah yes the fiction of the Fighter: &quot;He haz weapns, He be good with them.&quot; Riveting! What even IS a Fighter? How do you explain what a Fighter is to a newbie without mentionning stuff like &quot;easy to learn&quot; or &quot;subclass&quot; or &quot;has feats and extra attack&quot;?Anyway, just because you start from the fiction doesn't preclude a clear design goal, quite the opposite. You can imagine how that character would act in a battle and then come up with mechanics to support that image. What you imagine them doing is basically the 'core role' of the class. Everything else is just dial and levers to reinforce or modify that core role in various ways.I think the 4e Fighter had a much clearler identity, of being in the thick of things and not letting people through no matter what. The stickiness was real and enforced! It wasn't just the DM deciding not to ignore the Fighter. The Fighter was a living shield! But he had different ways to go about it. Martial Power even introduced the Battlerager Vigor class feature that essentially made you a mundane Barbarian (you got Temp HP everytime you got hit AND you could stack the Temp HP from powers with the 'Invigorating' keyword with any other Temp HP and finally you, while wearing light or medium armor, you got a damage bonus when you have Temp HP. And you had the Tempest Style that let you do the twin weapon thing... Sure it didn't get archery support...big friggin' deal. It didn't try to be everything for everybody, it was focused on this basic image of 'Guy at the frontline holding back enemies' and I think the design was cleaner and more focused for it.(And I'm pretty sure the 4e Rogue didn't really miss anything compared to the 5e Rogue, maybe free expertise or the ability to be an Arcane Trickster at level 3 (but that's more of a structural thing with 5e). The 4e Rogue even had powers and abilities made use of STR as a secondary ability so you could be a thug.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Undrave, post: 8089716, member: 7015698"] Ah yes the fiction of the Fighter: "He haz weapns, He be good with them." Riveting! What even IS a Fighter? How do you explain what a Fighter is to a newbie without mentionning stuff like "easy to learn" or "subclass" or "has feats and extra attack"? Anyway, just because you start from the fiction doesn't preclude a clear design goal, quite the opposite. You can imagine how that character would act in a battle and then come up with mechanics to support that image. What you imagine them doing is basically the 'core role' of the class. Everything else is just dial and levers to reinforce or modify that core role in various ways. I think the 4e Fighter had a much clearler identity, of being in the thick of things and not letting people through no matter what. The stickiness was real and enforced! It wasn't just the DM deciding not to ignore the Fighter. The Fighter was a living shield! But he had different ways to go about it. Martial Power even introduced the Battlerager Vigor class feature that essentially made you a mundane Barbarian (you got Temp HP everytime you got hit AND you could stack the Temp HP from powers with the 'Invigorating' keyword with any other Temp HP and finally you, while wearing light or medium armor, you got a damage bonus when you have Temp HP. And you had the Tempest Style that let you do the twin weapon thing... Sure it didn't get archery support...big friggin' deal. It didn't try to be everything for everybody, it was focused on this basic image of 'Guy at the frontline holding back enemies' and I think the design was cleaner and more focused for it. (And I'm pretty sure the 4e Rogue didn't really miss anything compared to the 5e Rogue, maybe free expertise or the ability to be an Arcane Trickster at level 3 (but that's more of a structural thing with 5e). The 4e Rogue even had powers and abilities made use of STR as a secondary ability so you could be a thug.) [/QUOTE]

Verification