D&D 5E When do you think the revised fighter will be released?

[CapnZapp]

Does this topic still exist?

When do you think the revised fighter will be released?

Never.

 

[flametitan]

Because 1) Lots of people like the fighter as a single class, and 2) multiclassing is an optional rule to begin with?

3) because the current fighter's fairly generic build and ease of assimilating other parts makes it a good blank slate class, which some people appreciate having over something that brings hyperspecific concepts to the table.

 

[Hussar]

Because 1) Lots of people like the fighter as a single class, and 2) multiclassing is an optional rule to begin with?

They do? I've yet to see any single classed fighters in our campaigns. Twenty or thirty PC's across the last three years and not one single classed fighter. Fighter is the dip class, AFAIC. It's what you take to give your character some oomph. It's not what people take with the idea that this is what their character is.

 

[Mistwell]

They do? I've yet to see any single classed fighters in our campaigns.

Oh well your personal experience must be representative of the whole of D&D experiences then, obviously!

Those surveys Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford did to see what people thought of the fighter class? Lies! Lies which, while getting thousands of responses, are simply not as representative as your 20-30 samples!

 

[Stalker0]

Same old "The Fighter can just take something that everyone else has", which keeps the fighter in the same place. I wonder why people are so adverse to fighters having things of their own.

So mean like the only class in the game that can get 2 full actions a round?

Or 4 attacks?

Or an 18 crit range?


They do have their own things....its just around fighting. Its in the name after all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those surveys Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford did to see what people thought of the fighter class?

Maybe didn't ask all the right questions...

They do?

Yes. They like the concepts that no other class works for, so it falls, by default, to a single-class fighter. Want to play a knight or a huntsman or an archer but don't want to cast spells? You'll have settle for fighter.

I've yet to see any single classed fighters in our campaigns.

Unverifiable anecdote from anonymous internet post noted.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Want to play a knight or a huntsman or an archer but don't want to cast spells? You'll have settle for fighter.

I don't disagree with this point, but since I'm a nitpicker person on the internet I'll point out that I could make a knight or a Huntsman that didn't cast spells with a Barbarian. Berserker, Battlerager, or Zealot specifically.

Well ok, maybe it's a better fit for a Man-at-Arms than a Knight. Wearing half-plate on a Horse is asking for Leg lacerations. Huntsman is still pretty doable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't disagree with this point, but since I'm a nitpicker person on the internet I'll point outthat I could make a knight or a Huntsman that didn't cast spells with a Barbarian.

Yeah, I settled on 'huntsman' rather than 'wilderness scout' or 'wilderness warrior' (or hunter), because I felt it didn't suggest rogue or barbarian the way those did, respectively, but a civilized weapon-user with woodsy skills - in 5e, an Outlander Fighter would be closest, a spell-less Ranger the actual point.

Knight tends to imply a code of disciplined conduct that would be at odds with Rage. Not that there weren't knights that flew off into a rage...

But, the non-AT rogue is a similar class-of-last-resort for agile/sneaky types, and the Berserker a much narrower one.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

They do? I've yet to see any single classed fighters in our campaigns. Twenty or thirty PC's across the last three years and not one single classed fighter. Fighter is the dip class, AFAIC. It's what you take to give your character some oomph. It's not what people take with the idea that this is what their character is.

We've only had a single multi-class PC so far. A MU that took a single level of cleric. Beyond that nothing.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Yeah, I settled on 'huntsman' rather than 'wilderness scout' or 'wilderness warrior' (or hunter), because I felt it didn't suggest rogue or barbarian the way those did, respectively, but a civilized weapon-user with woodsy skills - in 5e, an Outlander Fighter would be closest, a spell-less Ranger the actual point.

Knight tends to imply a code of disciplined conduct that would be at odds with Rage. Not that there weren't knights that flew off into a rage...

But, the non-AT rogue is a similar class-of-last-resort for agile/sneaky types, and the Berserker a much narrower one.

I think the Fighter Scout is a brilliant Commando character, and is easily my favorite Huntsman. Heck it's my favorite fighter. So I do get your point.

As far as knightly codes go sure. There's a lot of support for a Questing Knight that lives by a code, or a Knight loyal to his feudal Lord, but honestly a lot of historic Knights were just outright bastards to whom a code could be disregarded if it were inconvenient. Just Nobly born guys with Horses and Armour and a whole range of temperaments among them.

Though few D&Ders may want to actually play this latter type of Knight. Which is surprising as they are the OG Medieval Murderhobo.