D&D 5E Thoughts on Mearls' Comments on Fighter Subclasses Lacking Identity

[Li Shenron]

On 'I shouldn't have to be a rogue to be an assassin', that's what multi-classing is for! Be a rogue (assassin) 3/fighter X, and be a fighter who is also an assassin.

More generally, a game with class-based characters has the problem of unrealistic inflexibility; a problem that multi-classing solves. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

But you don't need to go as far as multiclassing! Sure it's an option (unless your DM vetoes it) but there are other ways.

There are feats which grant another class' features, such as Fighter's maneuvers or anyone's spells. They have limits, and maybe there is no feat granting Assassin's abilities yet. But this is only with PHB feats, more will be coming in the future and you can always design your own.

But what is most important, is that the mechanics support concepts but very often they are not strictly necessary. If you think that the only way to represent being an assassin is having the Rogue/Assassin subclass' specific features, then you are creating your own problem. And by saying that multiclassing is the solution, kind of implies you are still thinking about that Assassinate feature as mandatory. It is not.

An assassin is someone who assassinates people, i.e. killing them out of combat or just before combat starts. You may need some mechanic that makes you good (or better than others) at that, but you don't need the Assassinate mechanic exclusively.

 

[Minigiant]

I was just wondering about someone's claim upthread that fighter sub-classes should differentiate themselves according to weapon of choice. For example, a defender is sword & shield, slayers is great weapon, duelist is two-weapon, etc. That's certainly one axis along which fighters can be differentiated, albeit one limited to combat.

What's interesting about the names Champion and Veteran are that they imply something about the fighter's connection to the world and its people. For example you are a Champion of the People or a Champion of Kirkwall - you can expect your name to carry weight among those people. Or you are a Veteran of the Dragon Wars, or a Veteran of the Crusades - you can expect to be familiar with various personalities and events from the war.

In my mind, making those sorts of distinctions implicit in fighter sub-classes is far more interesting than focusing exclusively on the combat abilities.

Upthread I suggested the Veteran being a combat subclass with a mental aspect. Imagine the Veteran martial subclass having the mental equivalent to Remarkable Athlete. War Mind: add half your proficiency modifier to untrained Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma checks. Now you have the sort of brain sharpened by battle that people would expect from a veteran of a war who made it out alive and with all their senses. A careful and logical (or routine oriented and paraniod) warrior whose speech won't be ignored.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think there is scope for expanding the Fighter Class to include more fighting styles and manoeuvres (for the BattleMaster).

I think some of the extra subclass ideas are interesting but need to be thought through carefully in order to maintain balance. I do recall the original Unearthed Arcana Cavalier which was desperately overpowered from memory. Moreover, if I can already take a Knight background and an animal handling skill, then there is only so much else that can be added really.

The sort of thing I’d like to see expanded on in the Fighting Styles is to make exotic weapons more appealing. A good fighter, for example, may know how to get the best out of an ancient type of spear - way beyond the limited d6 damage it currently does in the standard rules. Maybe having a manoeuvre that improves or maximises damage would be something.

 

[Azurewraith]

The sort of thing I’d like to see expanded on in the Fighting Styles is to make exotic weapons more appealing. A good fighter, for example, may know how to get the best out of an ancient type of spear - way beyond the limited d6 damage it currently does in the standard rules. Maybe having a manoeuvre that improves or maximises damage would be something.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...classes-Lacking-Identity/page17#ixzz3k6ZGDpB7

I have to agree that i would very much like to see some sort of weapon master fighter that at level 1picked a weapon and got unique befits for the weapon so lets say dagger for example.

1st level choose a specialization and gain a benefit in the case of the dagger increase its damage die by one step
3rd level Daggers now score critical hits on an 18-20
7th Critical hits with daggers now leave a grievous wound on the target that causes them to bleed for their con mod damage each round for 1d4 rounds
etc i feel this gives fighters an identity they are supposed to be the combat experts.

Obviously this feature would mean re-working the fighter sub-classes or more than likely remove them all together but it would certainly give the fighter an identity.

 

[MoonSong]

I have to agree that i would very much like to see some sort of weapon master fighter that at level 1picked a weapon and got unique befits for the weapon so lets say dagger for example.

1st level choose a specialization and gain a benefit in the case of the dagger increase its damage die by one step
3rd level Daggers now score critical hits on an 18-20
7th Critical hits with daggers now leave a grievous wound on the target that causes them to bleed for their con mod damage each round for 1d4 rounds
etc i feel this gives fighters an identity they are supposed to be the combat experts.

Obviously this feature would mean re-working the fighter sub-classes or more than likely remove them all together but it would certainly give the fighter an identity.

It would tie fighters to a single weapon. That is somethinng the designers didn't want to do from day 1. It was a perceived problem on all editions since UA introduced Specialization.

 

[Uchawi]

A single weapon fighter like a Kensai would be a good choice to represent the simple fighter, and overall still be more interesting than the champion. But maneuvers for martial classes would add even more depth and flexibility.

 

[Azurewraith]

It would tie fighters to a single weapon. That is somethinng the designers didn't want to do from day 1. It was a perceived problem on all editions since UA introduced Specialization.

Guess im just odd in wanting my fighter to be tied down to one weapon

 

[MoonSong]

Guess im just odd in wanting my fighter to be tied down to one weapon

Not the only one I guess, but it was a design goal. When the designers allow a fighter to become specialized with a single weapon, they tend to not use any other weapon, and that is a problem for many old style DMs, who like the ability to be stingy with magic weapons and give whatever they want. On 3e and 4e, players had some control over what magic weapons they got, otherwise they suffered when they didn't have the right pluses. A common complaint is "I'm giving the players a magic weapon, and all they care is it isn't anybody's favorite." A typical case of the magic sword for the polearm wielder.

 

[Azurewraith]

Not the only one I guess, but it was a design goal. When the designers allow a fighter to become specialized with a single weapon, they tend to not use any other weapon, and that is a problem for many old style DMs, who like the ability to be stingy with magic weapons and give whatever they want. On 3e and 4e, players had some control over what magic weapons they got, otherwise they suffered when they didn't have the right pluses. A common complaint is "I'm giving the players a magic weapon, and all they care is it isn't anybody's favorite." A typical case of the magic sword for the polearm wielder.

They could all ways fix that issue with a class feature that let them shape their weapon to another form or transferr the magic or some such.

 

[MoonSong]

They could all ways fix that issue with a class feature that let them shape their weapon to another form or transferr the magic or some such.

<irony> And let players have some control over what magical loot they get? blasfemy!! </irony>