Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7188876" data-attributes="member: 20323">That's an astute question to ask. I think the big picture is that most players are mostly satisfied with the fighter class. Let me dig up numbers from my polls from last year:<img src="http://i.imgur.com/8zMkFvY.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />For me personally, I think subclasses with more identity is a move in the right direction for the fighter. After lots of gaming and reflection, I also think there are some fundamental design issues (I'll explain below).You're assuming, like other designers have throughout D&D's history, that such followers & strongholds & domain management need to be roughly equally distributed among classes. In OD&D that wasn't the case: fighters were the *only* ones who become barons and gained tax revenue. In AD&D, though others got such things, the fighter had an edge in terms of numbers/skill level/gear of followers. By 3e it had eroded completely.I'm not saying it would fit well into modern D&D design. I'm just pointing out there's no need for "equal representation" – that's a construct that emerged as designers cut things away from the fighter class over each edition.What I'm saying is – that design philosophy has created an identity void, which should be filled with *something*.There are small balance/design issues, but mostly yes, for me the problem has to do with lack of identity & lack of non-combat features.A couple thoughts... <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The fighter (like the sorcerer) has lots of features that upgrade. This reduces complexity but comes at the cost of interesting stuff to hang your imagination on.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighting Style & Extra Attack are not unique to the fighter. You have to wait till 11th level to get your third Extra Attack at which point it becomes "unique" in a sense. Having something earlier that's consistently reliable (unlike Action Surge) would feel more on point for a fighter.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I expect the fighter's choice of weaponry to be more significant than other warrior-types. I expect a fighter to be able to do things with a sword that a barbarian, paladin, or ranger could not do. Merging BD&D Weapon Mastery, AD&D Weapon Specialization (some of the optional rules), and 4e's weapon-specific power effects are good places to look for inspiration.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At 2nd level, the fighter is missing a second class feature that all other classes get (except the rogue). This would be a good place to add a "ribbon" ability or an ability that offers some identity. EDIT: If making such a change, I'd also advocate for the rogue getting a second feature at 2nd-level as well, something like Read Languages might be apropos.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At 3rd level, the fighter only gets Martial Archetype....whereas Barbarians get bonus Rage, Paladins get Divine Health, and Rangers get Primeval Awareness. After looking over the various subclasses of the warrior-types (roughly equal power/rules presence), it's clear the fighter is missing a feature at 3rd level.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Again, at 5th level, the fighter only gets Extra Attack....whereas Barbarians also get Fast Movement, and Paladins and Rangers also get 2nd level spells. Something is missing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Extra Attack (4) kicks in at 20th level...which is wonky, because other Extra Attack levels (5th & 11th) correspond to tier jumps & cantrip damage upgrades...personally, I would put Extra Attack (4) at 17th level and give the fighter class a proper interesting capstone.</li> </ul>When you look at any one of these issues in isolation, it's not a big deal, but add them together and a picture starts to form: The designers, in their effort to make the base fighter "low complexity", conflated "fewer unique features" with "low complexity."I think that's a mistake. "Low complexity" has more to do with a just-rightness of how the class features are designed.</blockquote>

Verification