D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[James Gasik]

How I despise the idea of non-supernatural aggro. In the old days, you used the terrain to protect your squishier members behind a wall of steel. Your class features didn't just do it for you, with no explanation needed.

Actually in 1e, apparently there was a rule forcing people to engage in melee. It's also a lot easier to protect the back row in a dungeon, where you can have the Fighter stand in a doorway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How I despise the idea of non-supernatural aggro. In the old days, you used the terrain to protect your squishier members behind a wall of steel. Your class features didn't just do it for you, with no explanation needed.

What's the problem with the idea of a particularly skilled & aggressive attacker making it difficult/dangerous to spare time from your own defense to attack a different enemy?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Knight:
View attachment 323970
Cavalier:
View attachment 323968

Point proven! The Rocketman is obviously way cooler. Look at those shades!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually in 1e, apparently there was a rule forcing people to engage in melee. It's also a lot easier to protect the back row in a dungeon, where you can have the Fighter stand in a doorway.

Inside is easier to defend than outside, yes. That's how the world works. And how exactly did the 1e rule you're referencing work? Its been a while since I played 1e, and the OSR games I favor handle the issue differently.

 

[FrogReaver]

Meaning many RPGs were designed with mechanics and incentives that don't match the style of play they portray themselves as. Then once enshrined as traditional, adjustments are resisted.

Then 4e didn’t do that at all. Maybe it’s your choice of example that’s messing me up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sorry to hear you can't wrap your head around the idea of a particularly skilled & aggressive attacker making it difficult/dangerous to spare time from your own defense to attack a different enemy.

Forcing the issue regardless of opponent or circumstances? Yeah, I can't wrap my head around that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then 4e didn’t do that at all. Maybe it’s your choice of example that’s messing me up.

Yeah, like it or not, 4e had a playstyle agenda, and both encouraged and supported it.

 

[FrogReaver]

*Just ask yourself how many people play Cavaliers, who have a heavy defender theme, as opposed to other subclasses, if you take umbrage with this statement.

IMO. Cavalier is flawed in implementation, not in concept.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, like it or not, 4e had a playstyle agenda, and both encouraged and supported it.

What game doesn’t?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What game doesn’t?

Well, WotC 5e is pretty sketchy about what it's trying to support, but its pretty much the only one.