Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The New Fighter
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="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6106849" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>If you ask a player, of course they'll say that more is better... There are a couple of reasons why I don't think it's better for the game as a whole. </p><p></p><p>The first reason is that there is always room to add more stuff in your own game through house rules, but it's never nice to take stuff away, so as a general principle I don't like adding more features that aren't needed. Here we may disagree on the concept of "need", but if the problem is that a Fighter <em>needs </em>to have something to do out-of-combat, my opinion is that he already has, and 5e has already improved that by about double compared to 3e. Anyway my belief is that with too much stuff in the game players get too hung up on their uber character sheets and less focused on tactics, story, and teamwork.</p><p></p><p>The second reason is more subtle, and specific for the Fighter class. IMO every idea they will come up with for out-of-combat unique features will have to be chosen from a pool rather than automatic, otherwise it will narrow the concept behind the class (such as making all Fighters be soldiers or knight). Then, the game has already made the choice of opening up stuff like that to any character, through background/skills and specialties/feats, so the new ideas must not come at the expense of removing these options from everyone else. These things leave only small room for designing something out-of-combat that is (a) "Fightery" enough, (b) doesn't force a narrow archetype on all fighters, (c) doesn't work only at the expense of preventing others to be just as good at something. For example, there have been suggestions that Fighters should get some leadership features. Why would that be more fitting to a fighter than a wizard or cleric? Leadership <em>in combat</em> yes, that's more fitting to a fighter, but not out-of-combat. </p><p></p><p>But maybe it's not impossible to come up with something that everybody at least has no particular problems with. The current packet has started an idea of replacing class bonus skill (cleric and wizard) with a different benefit (advantage) that doesn't immediately make them the absolute best at those skills but makes them rather more reliable (and the benefit works both if such character has the skill trained or not). How about doing the same for the Fighter on <strong>fatigue-based saving throws</strong>? This doesn't imply any narrow concept on the class, and for me it would be "fightery" enough because it represents a very generic ability of being more resilient, after having spent years sweating and bleeding either in battle or training hard. What do you think?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6106849, member: 1465"] If you ask a player, of course they'll say that more is better... There are a couple of reasons why I don't think it's better for the game as a whole. The first reason is that there is always room to add more stuff in your own game through house rules, but it's never nice to take stuff away, so as a general principle I don't like adding more features that aren't needed. Here we may disagree on the concept of "need", but if the problem is that a Fighter [I]needs [/I]to have something to do out-of-combat, my opinion is that he already has, and 5e has already improved that by about double compared to 3e. Anyway my belief is that with too much stuff in the game players get too hung up on their uber character sheets and less focused on tactics, story, and teamwork. The second reason is more subtle, and specific for the Fighter class. IMO every idea they will come up with for out-of-combat unique features will have to be chosen from a pool rather than automatic, otherwise it will narrow the concept behind the class (such as making all Fighters be soldiers or knight). Then, the game has already made the choice of opening up stuff like that to any character, through background/skills and specialties/feats, so the new ideas must not come at the expense of removing these options from everyone else. These things leave only small room for designing something out-of-combat that is (a) "Fightery" enough, (b) doesn't force a narrow archetype on all fighters, (c) doesn't work only at the expense of preventing others to be just as good at something. For example, there have been suggestions that Fighters should get some leadership features. Why would that be more fitting to a fighter than a wizard or cleric? Leadership [I]in combat[/I] yes, that's more fitting to a fighter, but not out-of-combat. But maybe it's not impossible to come up with something that everybody at least has no particular problems with. The current packet has started an idea of replacing class bonus skill (cleric and wizard) with a different benefit (advantage) that doesn't immediately make them the absolute best at those skills but makes them rather more reliable (and the benefit works both if such character has the skill trained or not). How about doing the same for the Fighter on [B]fatigue-based saving throws[/B]? This doesn't imply any narrow concept on the class, and for me it would be "fightery" enough because it represents a very generic ability of being more resilient, after having spent years sweating and bleeding either in battle or training hard. What do you think? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The New Fighter
Top