Hussar
Legend
Umm, what other editions? Only 1 edition in all of D&D went 1-20 (well, two now) and that was 3e. All other editions went either 1-36 or 1-30. Since we're talking about misinformation as fact...
D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?
- Thread starter Corpsetaker
- Start date
Umm, what other editions? Only 1 edition in all of D&D went 1-20 (well, two now) and that was 3e. All other editions went either 1-36 or 1-30. Since we're talking about misinformation as fact...
Obryn
Hero
Psst... On the Internet, D&D history started with 3e, and anything that originated in 3e qualifies as "in the game forever."
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Or maybe I just see soldiering as something more than "being a trained combatant," in your words. It's about discipline, logistics, communication, cooperation, hygiene, technical skill, and fitness. Oh, and killing people.
If by "trained combatant" you actually meant "trained soldier" then I would refer you to those areas. But fighters in 5E are not necessarily soldiers at all. They could just as easily be warriors, who don't really care about most of the above proficiencies.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I remember 2nd edition going from 1-20. IIRC the class that had rules for going to 30 was the wizard, in the Complete Wizard's Handbook. Of course that's AD&D not D&D, so maybe you weren't including it.
Edit: oh yeah, and Dark Sun's Dragon Kings extended it to 1-30 for... pretty much everybody, I guess, including fighters. Point taken. Is Dragon Kings what you had in mind?
P.S. My players are pretty excited about the level 21+ XP table I showed them for our 5E game. I think people like the idea of never being capped.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Indeed. That's what backgrounds are for. A fighter is simply combat. A soldier (and any skills from that) would be from the PCs background, and not baked into the fighter class.
For the record, I am a military vet, and there wasn't a whole lot of non-combat orientated training we went through, unless you count memorizing ranks and drill and ceremony "interaction pillar" or something.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
And radio jargon and AARs, presumably, would also fit somewhat under that pillar.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Skill Miltary Jargon: You know what FUBAR, and SNAFU, and "Ate Up" means. You are proficient in using the f-word at least twice in every sentence. You gain advantage in turning any phrase into an acronym.
If you want to argue that way, than 3e went 1 - infinity
Hussar
Legend
That's true if you include the Epic rules. Fair enough. So, basically, the idea that the game went 1-20 has never actually been true in any edition has it?
-----
Side note. I LOVE the fact that [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION] presents a variant on healing that is virtually IDENTICAL to the variants presented for 4e healing, but, apparently were never good enough for 4e play, but, are exactly what is needed to make 5e feel more gritty. The more things change...
------
Look, it's fairly simple. The reason people have issues with the fighter is the same reason that people have ALWAYS had issues with fighters. They're too simple. Going all the way back to OD&D, every single rules supplement has added complexity to fighters. Once upon a time, all weapons did the same damage. So, they came up with different damage expressions for weapons which made fighters in particular more complex since they were the ones most likely to use multiple different weapons. Then 1e comes along and fighters (and fighter types, there was even less differentiation then) got multiple attacks based on level and weapon vs armour tables. Then the Unearthed Arcana 1e comes along and you get Weapon Specialisation. 2e brings in the idea of Two Weapon Fighting as a specialisation (it did exist in 1e, but, it was fairly hard to use) and suddenly you had sword and board and TWF floating around. Then 3e comes along and brings in a boat load of feats with which to differentiate fighters. One fighter might go Improved Trip (meaning he couldn't dump stat Int) while another might go Power Attack/Cleave. With a feat every two levels (or more sometimes) and some 3000 feats, you had options galore.
4e ramped up complexity even more. Fighters had powers (and a choice of a boatload of powers at each level) plus tactical options like marking and whatnot. Again, this isn't really new, just a continuation of a trend that was thirty years old by this time.
5e has moved away from powers and greatly reduced the complexity of fighters. For some, that's a good thing. Fighters are now the "basic" class you can hand to just about anyone and they can play and play effectively. Very similar to a 1e or Basic D&D fighter. Newbie at your table? Hand him/her a fighter and you're good to go. For those who want the increased complexity though, they're left in the cold. For those who want a fighter who is just as complex as a wizard, which is what a 4e fighter, and sometimes a 3e fighter too, is, there's no real option to ramp up the complexity.
If you want to play a complex sword swinger, you have to go with a partial caster class. Either Eldritch Knight for straight fighter, or paladin or ranger. For those who want a fighter that has half a dozen mechanically spelled out options at any given time, it doesn't exist in 5e. I think that's the source of many of the complaints here. The fighter is just too simple for those who want to play a straight fighter and not a fighter/caster.
Hussar
Legend
[MENTION=26510] Sacrosanct[/MENTION] - you mention not accepting the criticism of "Mother May I" of earlier edition systems. Let me ask you a question. If I was playing a fighter and attacking an opponent in plate mail and I said, "I want to damage him in such a way that I do regular damage and damage his armour, reducing his AC by 2 for the rest of the fight" would you accept that? I'm thinking, and certainly my experience has been, that that would not fly at any 1e or 2e table. At a 3e table, it would be problematic since Sunder only applies to held weapons/shields. I suppose I could try to sunder a shield, but, then I'm not doing damage, and it only works on something that is carrying a shield. It's not what I'm trying to do. AFAIK, there aren't 3e rules for this.
In 4e, that's a simple 5th level Fighter Daily - Crack the Shell. Easy, peasy, over and done.
That's where the idea of Mother May I comes in. When the player has to negotiate with the DM to create effects and is entirely dependent on DM Fiat in order to actually perform the action. If the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate (I slam my mace into the side of his plate mail, denting it and making it hard to move- deal weapon damage and -2 AC for the rest of the fight) then the player cannot attempt that action. And, in play, I find that most DM's are much more likely to say no than yes to players attempting things like this.
Do you think that my example would fly at most tables? That lacking a specific power structure like 4e, I could tell the DM that I was slamming my mace into the baddies' breast plate and denting it so that he takes a -2 AC penalty for the rest of the fight would fly?
In 4e, that's a simple 5th level Fighter Daily - Crack the Shell. Easy, peasy, over and done.
That's where the idea of Mother May I comes in. When the player has to negotiate with the DM to create effects and is entirely dependent on DM Fiat in order to actually perform the action. If the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate (I slam my mace into the side of his plate mail, denting it and making it hard to move- deal weapon damage and -2 AC for the rest of the fight) then the player cannot attempt that action. And, in play, I find that most DM's are much more likely to say no than yes to players attempting things like this.
Do you think that my example would fly at most tables? That lacking a specific power structure like 4e, I could tell the DM that I was slamming my mace into the baddies' breast plate and denting it so that he takes a -2 AC penalty for the rest of the fight would fly?
Similar Threads
