The Fighter's Identity

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think that "tactical leader" should definitely be a theme that fighters are good at, but it doesn't necessarily fit all fighter archetypes very well. Tanis Half-Elven is a fighter, but so is Caramon Majere - the big, dumb guy who's good at smashing things. Any number of half-orc fighters with names like Glomrph would also fit into the "big ugly guy who's good with weapons" archetype, and I'm not convinced they all need to sprout tactical brilliance in 5e.

I do think the fighter class is hard to pin down conceptually in 5e. I think their 4e definition as martial defenders was very useful, but they're moving away from having classes tied to roles.

One thing I've mentioned elsewhere that might work as a definition of fighter is "the guy who wades into melee with relish." Whereas a rogue only dives into the fray with a careful and targeted purpose, a fighter is at home with battle raging on all sides. The benefit of this definition is that it works with a great many of the archetypes mentioned (Musketeer-style swashbuckler, knight, battlefield archer, etc) as well as the core fighter attributes (good HP and armor).

Ways this could work mechanically include:

1. benefits to attacks of opportunity (like 3e Combat Reflexes, but obviously tailored to whatever the new AOO rules are)
2. situational counterattacks ("X times per day, when an opponent misses a melee attack against you, as a reaction you can make a normal melee attack against them")
3. benefits to melee "maneuvers" ("Advantage on all Str and Dex contests made as part of melee combat")
4. situational benefits to defenses ("Last Stand: Advantage on saving throws made when below 1/4 HP")
5. a 4e mark-style ability

Obviously, the fighter probably wouldn't get ALL of these, but they're some options that would fit the theme.

 

[the Jester]

That is one place where I think Themes can take up some of the slack. I don't want an intrinsically magical Fighter Class, but am cool with a Fighter Class taking a Theme such as Avenger or Hexblade.

YES.

I have to spread it around some; can someone cover me and xp jadrax for this, please?

I'm not trying to tell you how you should play your game, but dude...that sounds more like a round of Magic: the Gathering than a round of Dungeons & Dragons.

Totally disagree. The whole "fighter leads a great horde of warriors against a dragon; fighter and six followers live" is a classic D&D trope IMHO.

 

[Klaus]

I think that "tactical leader" should definitely be a theme that fighters are good at, but it doesn't necessarily fit all fighter archetypes very well. Tanis Half-Elven is a fighter, but so is Caramon Majere - the big, dumb guy who's good at smashing things. Any number of half-orc fighters with names like Glomrph would also fit into the "big ugly guy who's good with weapons" archetype, and I'm not convinced they all need to sprout tactical brilliance in 5e.

I do think the fighter class is hard to pin down conceptually in 5e. I think their 4e definition as martial defenders was very useful, but they're moving away from having classes tied to roles.

One thing I've mentioned elsewhere that might work as a definition of fighter is "the guy who wades into melee with relish." Whereas a rogue only dives into the fray with a careful and targeted purpose, a fighter is at home with battle raging on all sides. The benefit of this definition is that it works with a great many of the archetypes mentioned (Musketeer-style swashbuckler, knight, battlefield archer, etc) as well as the core fighter attributes (good HP and armor).

Ways this could work mechanically include:

1. benefits to attacks of opportunity (like 3e Combat Reflexes, but obviously tailored to whatever the new AOO rules are)
2. situational counterattacks ("X times per day, when an opponent misses a melee attack against you, as a reaction you can make a normal melee attack against them")
3. benefits to melee "maneuvers" ("Advantage on all Str and Dex contests made as part of melee combat")
4. situational benefits to defenses ("Last Stand: Advantage on saving throws made when below 1/4 HP")
5. a 4e mark-style ability

Obviously, the fighter probably wouldn't get ALL of these, but they're some options that would fit the theme.

Tanis was a Fighter. And even as an outcast, he managed to be the first non-human Knight of Solamnia (honorary), he inspired loyalty in the Companions and he effectively led the defense of a city against the forces of Lord Soth.

Caramon was somewhat dumb, yes, but he had good tactical awareness to know where to hit his enemies, when to retreat and had grown beyond the "dumb guy" persona by the time of the Legends.

 

[Halivar]

Totally disagree. The whole "fighter leads a great horde of warriors against a dragon; fighter and six followers live" is a classic D&D trope IMHO.

Yes! One can only hope there'll be rules for henchmen and hirelings more robust and useful than the 3E Leadership feat.

 

[Stormonu]

I agree we should see a theme or background to allow for followers - but I don't think it should be fighter-only thing. I mean, the game has stong past with thief guilds, barbarian hordes, cleric apostles, and wizard apprentices, so you can't limit followers to just fighters. But perhaps they can get the best well-armed and trained troops...

Also, just as side abilities for the other pillars; one thing I keep thinking back on is the "fighter takes the nightwatch" that always seems to happen. The cleric and the wizard need their beauty sleep, and no one trusts the rogue to be on guard - perhaps the fighter should get some skill, ability or other perk that helps then stay alert and awake if they take watch. Kudos if the ability is useful for other things as well say, watching over the party as they study a map or try and find a way around an obstacle.

 

[CleverNickName]

Totally disagree. The whole "fighter leads a great horde of warriors against a dragon; fighter and six followers live" is a classic D&D trope IMHO.

Oh that part I'm cool with. It's the part where a dragon dies in a single round, thanks to a single special ability, that made me choke a bit on my coffee. I could almost hear my girlfriend say "okay, I tap seven to play Bounded Accuracy, giving all my Soldier tokens +2/+2 until the end of turn. Your dragon is forced to block them, so he dies."

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Tanis was a Fighter. And even as an outcast, he managed to be the first non-human Knight of Solamnia (honorary), he inspired loyalty in the Companions and he effectively led the defense of a city against the forces of Lord Soth.

Yeah, the contrast was my point - Tanis fits well as the tactical-leader fighter, but Caramon doesn't.

Caramon was somewhat dumb, yes, but he had good tactical awareness to know where to hit his enemies, when to retreat and had grown beyond the "dumb guy" persona by the time of the Legends.

But you want to be able to play the pre-Legends Caramon too. As you mention, yes, he was fairly competent at the delicate art of sticking pointy things into squishy things, but he certainly was no inspirational leader, nor a master tactician.

 

[Tony Vargas]

From the beginning, the problem with the Fighter hasn't been that it's too narrow, but too broad. It was asked to model every archetype from knight to barbarian to soldier to tribal warrior to fencing master to archer to weapon specialist to gladiator to feudal lord. All with nothing to it's name but d10 HD and a nice attack matrix.

Adding magic to the fighter cleaved off the Ranger and Paladin. Taking magic away from the Fighter gave us the Barbarian. And, the Cavalier got pulled out of the fighter's bailiwick, too.

In 3e, the Barbarian was made rage-tastic, and the Cavalier was folded back into the fighter who was made customizeable through feats - and still had to cover every non-magical combat-capable heroic fantasy archetype. Then, in 3.5 they cleaved the Cavalier off the fighter again with the Knight. 3e also took away followers but added the Leadership feat.

And, in 4e, the folded the Knight right back into the fighter again. And, in Essentials, popped him out again, along with the Slayer. (Must be some kinda pendulum thing.)


True, the AD&D fighter could build a stronghold and attract followers. But, so could just about any 'name level' character. Druids and Rangers didn't build strongholds, and Wizards didn't attract followers, IIRC.

Also, 'broadening' the fighter from 'best at combat' to 'also good at large-scale combat' isn't really broadening him much.


What the fighter really needs is 'broadening' into the other two pillars - Interaction and Exploration, where no ed has ever given him much to do.


On the combat side, the fighter really needs some help. Other martial classes that'll let players have better tools to model sub-sets of the archetypes the poor fighter has been struggling to meet all this time.


4e gave us the Warlord, which was a good start, covering the heroic leader archetype, and from a gamist standpoint, finally providing a solid alternative to the Cleric. The warlord, BTW, could also do with some 'broadening' into the 'exploration' Pillar.


The fighter, rather than being broadened, could be narrowed in it's combat role to it's classic 'fighting man' archetype - the extremely tough, stolid, heavy-infantry soldier who anchors a combat team, forming a solid front-line. No fancy tricks, just good consistent offense and even better defense and staying power. But, it should also be broadened into the other pillars. A strong, dependable, disciplined soldier should be of use in exploration - he has great endurance, for instance, and, like a Roman Legionary could be part engineer and sapper as well as front-line fighter, he could be very perceptive, a trained observer with the discipline to stay alert on long watches and tiring marches. An asset in Exploration. He could also be a strong figure that inspires confidence in common people, powerful, yet not so strange as a magic-using character nor socially set apart like a knight or lord, knows how to negotiate from a position of strength, and understands the importance of winning allies and avoiding unnecessary conflict. An asset in many social situations.

This would leave room for other martial classes to better cover other archetypes, and, incidentally, present other, more complex or resource-management oriented sub-systems to model their martial prowess.

Obviously, the Warlord, having appeared in a PH1, should be one of these, covering the feudal lord/heroic leader/commander sort of archetypes. Unlike the classic fighter, the warlord is set apart - by social class, past military service, or simple acclaim - as a leader of other warriors. The Warlord could use different mechanics from the fighter's simple big-number attacks/AC/hps, or from the 'maneuvers' being suggested, and directly aid his party. The Warlord might let allies tap their Hit Dice in combat and/or have take actions that also allow an ally to take a specific action and/or have 'battle plans' that allow him to call on some specific bonus, enhancement, or specific free actions by allies at some point in the course of a given combat. Yes, possibly including limitted-use 'powers' like a 4e martial character. The warlord was introduced by 4e, afterall.

In the 5e spirit of not pegging classes to roles, the Warlord could have alternative options that make it less of a 4e-styled leader, and instead of "healing" and boosting allies, he could be a 'leader' in the conventional sense, bringing NPC allies - a band of fighting men - to the party instead of leading the party, himself. With a well-drilled band of followers, the warlord could orchestrate them to form shield-walls, cut down lesser foes by the dozen, launch barrages of missile weapons and so forth - all resolved on the warlord's turn by the warlord player, with a few decisions and rolls rather than individually.


Other candidates might be a consummate Archer, a fast/light-armored or "scientific" Duelist, a highly-trained Weapon Specialist or Martial-Artist with a special 'style,' or a daring Warrior out to prove his courage.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not sure I entirely agree that the fighter should be broken down further - the other prime classes: wizard, rogue and cleric cover a pretty broad range as well.

I think theme and background should be able to provide enough lattitude to cover many varities of fighters without class-spamming. Especially if the fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies (if any) are moved to the themes.

If they do break the class down further, I'd like to see Swashbuckler and Knight/Cavalier become standard classes, but I'd really prefer if they stayed themes (Samurai, Mercenary, Blackguard, Bounty Hunter and whatnot all seem better to me as themes instead of breaking the class out for each fighting motif).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure I entirely agree that the fighter should be broken down further - the other prime classes: wizard, rogue and cleric cover a pretty broad range as well.

The Rogue covers scouts & thieves, prettymuch. The Cleric is it's own archetype virtually created by D&D - not that priests aren't very real, they're just not common heroes in fantasy, like wizards, more often being support and background characters. So, no they're really not covering that much. And, the two Clerics in the playtest are so mechanically different they might almost be different classes.

The Wizard is the classic Vancian character. Based on the "in if you were in a PH" mandate, the Warlock and Sorcerer are also in. They'll presumably be spontaneous or at-will casters, using different mechanics to cover magic-using archetypes that the wizard would otherwise be struggle to model with Vancian mechanics.

If the Arcane arts need three or more sub-systems to model their range of archetypes, even though fantasy protagonists were rarely magic-using prior to the advent of D&D, then the range of Martial archetypes could certainly do with a few classes, as well.

Two, by the "PH" rule, the Fighter and Warlord, are in. (The Ranger and Paladin both wield magic, and the Rogue, while lacking magic, is so non-combat-skill focused I'm not sure it's 'martial' in the 5e sense, even if it was martial in 4e). They might as well do something with 'em.