The Playtest Fighter

[Minigiant]

Actually you could take the theme of the dwarf cleric in the actual game to be more a tank than a damage dealer (I try to avoid 4e terms).

But that is the theme.

The actual "fighter class" part of the playtest fighter is boring. You have to manually unboring it by constantly using ad-hoc attacks with no rules..

 

[Holy Bovine]

The fighter seems to be one of the major gripes people have with the playtest, and I have to agree. I understand the need for a simple playstyle to appeal to new players, but that playstyle should be the exception and not the norm.

Most 5E players won't be new players, they'll be players that are at least somewhat familiar with D&D. I'd also think that if new players had made the decision to try and learn D&D in the first place, they'd put in a bit more effort than just learning how to hit stuff, which seems to be the only option for the playtest fighter.

After all the blog posts on how awesome the fighter was going to be, I can't help but feel incredibly let down. I know that they're going to offer more options later on in feats, but I'd like some fun abilities tied into the class itself that I don't have to go out of my way to get.

I disagree entirely. The game is going to need a basic class that anyone can jump into and feel like they are contributing. There shouldn't be any need for 'system mastery' to enter into a person's first game. They should be handed a single sheet of paper (a HUGE plus imo to the playtest fighter) and told this is everything you need to play. This is exactly how I view this fighter - a way to get someone who has never played a chance to sit down and play with minimal rule reading and page flipping. The characters for the 'advanced' players are the wizard and clerics. The Rogue is a middle ground PC. I have no doubt there will be other themes and builds to the fighter to give you the options you crave but this 'basic' fighter isn't meant to be it.

 

[Brix]

No surges!

 

[Lexeme]

I know I shouldn't try to do it, but I can't help wonder how this character is built. Why is the greataxe at +6 atk and do 2d6+7 damage? It's not even the right damage die. I assume the class gives bonuses of some kind? Oh well, wait and see...

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

Let me quote the best 5E fighter's post I read so far (in particular the first paragraph), from the wizards forum:

"People. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)"

I could never have said it better. 4E has always felt like being restrained to me. Just my 2 cents, however.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree entirely. The game is going to need a basic class that anyone can jump into and feel like they are contributing. There shouldn't be any need for 'system mastery' to enter into a person's first game. They should be handed a single sheet of paper (a HUGE plus imo to the playtest fighter) and told this is everything you need to play. This is exactly how I view this fighter - a way to get someone who has never played a chance to sit down and play with minimal rule reading and page flipping. The characters for the 'advanced' players are the wizard and clerics. The Rogue is a middle ground PC. I have no doubt there will be other themes and builds to the fighter to give you the options you crave but this 'basic' fighter isn't meant to be it.

I disagree entirely. There should not be just one class like this. All classes should have these options (or at least almost all). And I don't see what's that tricky to play about the thief as it stands.

But there's a fundamental reason for worrying about the fighter in specific. D&D has a track record of giving all the cool toys to the casters, some tricks to the rogue, and leaving the fighter with almost nothing. The 1e (pre-UA) fighter is worse than the 3e one in this respect. Which means that the fighter even more than the rogue is a dealbreaker.

 

[Ellington]

Let me quote the best 5E fighter's post I read so far (in particular the first paragraph), from the wizards forum:

"People. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)"

I could never have said it better. 4E has always felt like being restrained to me. Just my 2 cents, however.

I understand what you're getting at, but if stunts are supposed to be a big part of the class, common stunts need to be balanced and not left up to the DM. How pushing, feinting and other stuff you're likely to be doing works needs to be playtested on a common ground for the class to function independent of whatever DM is at the table.

I mean, why don't we just have spells be Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma based checks and leave it to the DM to see if they're cool with it?

 

[Fifth Element]

I could never have said it better. 4E has always felt like being restrained to me. Just my 2 cents, however.

So...if people don't do this in 5E it's the player's fault, but if they don't do it in 4E is the game's fault? Ability check vs. defence in 4E makes this sort of thing quite easy to adjudicate.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let me quote the best 5E fighter's post I read so far (in particular the first paragraph), from the wizards forum:

"People. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)"

I could never have said it better. 4E has always felt like being restrained to me. Just my 2 cents, however.

People.

If you want to be a fighter and play with stunts that way - and have a generous DM - play a cleric. Same as in 1e. Make sure your wis is 12 (it really doesn't need to be your primary stat). The Priest of Moradin in the pregen set shows you the way to do this.

If you are a fighter, you shouldn't be using your strength to rush people into a pit. Your schtick is that you hit people hard. You lose what tiny little bonus you have if you are in combat and not attacking. If you had made the smart option to play a cleric rather than a fighter, you would still get your spells out of combat and you even get some spells on the turns you aren't bull rushing. Where as a fighter, your attempt to bull rush doesn't just take away an attack, it takes away all your class features you'd be using. In this case you shouldn't be coming up with something better to do than swinging your sword.

You are a specialist in swinging your sword - nobody does it better. That is what you do. And every time you try bull rushing instead you are adding to the argument that you should instead be playing a cleric. Clerics aren't exceptional at swinging swords or maces. They are solid at doing so. So every time they would be swinging a sword and don't that gives up far less than the fighter who is avoiding doing what his class makes him good at.

If you have a DM who is so incredibly generous as to allow you a contest of dexterity to gain Advantage whenever you ask, you should be playing a rogue. You're going to be much better at swinging a sword than any fighter - even at first level with a 1d6 sneak attack you're almost matching their damage - 2d6 at second and you're surpassing it. As well as being the skill monkey.

When your advice boils down to "Fighters work much better if you avoid using their class features and do things that a cleric wouldn't give anything up to, and a rogue would often be better with" then you are saying even more clearly than I could that fighters suck. After all your advice isn't just to not do what they aren't good at, it's to avoid doing the one thing they are meant to excel at.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Except that the cleric and the rogue don't get extra actions every round. That's kind of a significant advantage to me.