Why adhere to the "core" classes? Why not deconstruct for flexibility?

[mmadsen]

A question: Does everyone agree that the current Fighter class design works well? (At least in concept.)

 

[boredgremlin]

Yeah i like the fighter class. The versatility allows you to be good in almost every situation and still kinda max out a few abilities that come up often.

 

[mmadsen]

A question: Does everyone agree that the current Fighter class design works well? (At least in concept.)

I ask, because the Fighter obviously represents a strong archetype, but it does it so flexibly. Couldn't all classes have a list of special abilities to choose from?

 

[WizarDru]

I ask, because the Fighter obviously represents a strong archetype, but it does it so flexibly. Couldn't all classes have a list of special abilities to choose from?

The fighter class works well for what it was intended to do, which is let you choose between a few basic sub-types of warrior, such as stick-and-board, axe, bowman, turtle or the like. It does not allow for a good swift or dextrous warrior. You can do Conan, for example, but not the Prince of Persia. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed class, the Unfetered, apparently fills this niche; the standard fighter class does not. This is not necessarily a condemnation of the class, you understand: in point of fact, it could be easily remedied within the existing framework of the game with specific feats that are restricted in the same fashion as Weapon Specialization.

Arguably, all classes could work this way in some capacity...but it's a question of tradeoffs. Most of the fighters flexibility comes in a very narrow space. He's very good with an axe or a sword, for example, or can take a special attack. Many of the special talents for a spellcaster would be more varied and arguably much more convoluted.

Further, many classes might become diluted by the effort. Paladins are a core class because playtesters felt they should be. Many players felt strongly about multiclass restrictions on paladins and monks, as well, which is why these restrictions remain in the core even today. If you make a Paladin just a fighter with a different bonus feat set, does he actually remain a paladin? IMHO, he wouldn't...but that's a point of personal preference.

 

[mmadsen]

The fighter class works well for what it was intended to do, which is let you choose between a few basic sub-types of warrior, such as stick-and-board, axe, bowman, turtle or the like. It does not allow for a good swift or dextrous warrior. You can do Conan, for example, but not the Prince of Persia.

That's an argument to either (1) make the Fighter even more flexible, probably by providing good "swashbuckling" feats -- and by not automatically including Heavy Armor and Shield Proficiencies -- or (2) make a Swashbuckler class like the Fighter, but with a different list of bonus feats -- and a good Ref save.

Arguably, all classes could work this way in some capacity...but it's a question of tradeoffs. Most of the fighters flexibility comes in a very narrow space. He's very good with an axe or a sword, for example, or can take a special attack. Many of the special talents for a spellcaster would be more varied and arguably much more convoluted.

I don't understand. What kind of tradeoffs? And who's making them?

The point of the Fighter class is that it's incredibly flexible, but only within the narrow space of fighting. Couldn't we make the other classes just as flexible, but only within their own narrow spaces?

For instance, Rangers could choose from all sorts of "ranger" feats: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Quickdraw, Run, Skill Focus (Class Skill), Track, Weapon Focus; Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step; Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge.

Paladins could choose from "paladin" feats, Barbarians could choose from "barbarian" feats, and Rogues could choose from "rogue" feats.

If you make a Paladin just a fighter with a different bonus feat set, does he actually remain a paladin? IMHO, he wouldn't...but that's a point of personal preference.

If you create a Paladin class with "paladin" feats to choose from, how is that not distinct from the Fighter class that doesn't have access to those powers?

 

[WizarDru]

That's an argument to either (1) make the Fighter even more flexible, probably by providing good "swashbuckling" feats -- and by not automatically including Heavy Armor and Shield Proficiencies -- or (2) make a Swashbuckler class like the Fighter, but with a different list of bonus feats -- and a good Ref save.

What, do I stutter?

I don't understand. What kind of tradeoffs? And who's making them?

The players and the DM; they're trading off simplicty for flexibility. How valuable a tradeoff that is varies from group to group.

The point of the Fighter class is that it's incredibly flexible, but only within the narrow space of fighting. Couldn't we make the other classes just as flexible, but only within their own narrow spaces?

I MUST be stuttering.

Paladins could choose from "paladin" feats, Barbarians could choose from "barbarian" feats, and Rogues could choose from "rogue" feats.If you create a Paladin class with "paladin" feats to choose from, how is that not distinct from the Fighter class that doesn't have access to those powers?

It all depends on the implementation. If the bonus feats are too broad, you've just made a fighter with a restricted feat selection; if you make them too narrow, you've defeated the purpose of the effort. Taking all of the class abilities and make them feat chains that you'll end up taking 90% of, merely to create a paladin without Detect Evil as a given...well, that's an awful lot of work for relatively little gain, in my book. How much flexibility are you actually getting from that approach? I'm not really sure.

 

[mmadsen]

What, do I stutter?

To be honest, it wasn't at all clear to me what you were getting at.

My point was that the Fighter class is quite flexible, yet simple -- and it defines an archetype quite clearly. Thus, other classes could follow its model (i.e., a feat list) to be flexible, yet simple, while defining an archetype clearly.

Your response was that the Fighter class can't depict a swashbuckler well. Which does not address my point, as far as I can tell.

 

[WizarDru]

My point was that the Fighter class is quite flexible, yet simple -- and it defines an archetype quite clearly. Thus, other classes could follow its model (i.e., a feat list) to be flexible, yet simple, while defining an archetype clearly.

Your response was that the Fighter class can't depict a swashbuckler well. Which does not address my point, as far as I can tell.

Sorry, thought the part about "easily remedied within the existing framework of the game with specific feats..." made clear the point I was trying to make (which it clearly didn't)...which was that you could just break characters down that way, but that the fighter was the easiest class to accomplish that with due to it's relatively simple nature (and by extrapolation other classes would be perforce harder), that it would be a lot more work for everyone involved and that if you did it wrong, it would end homogenizing the classes and possibly render some classes as unrecognizable as their sources. Or something.

I tend to babble.

 

[Umbran]

Or in other words, why load up on tons of supplement and variant products to get a PC's aspects *just right* when you could build the character to spec from the git-go?

Because fexibility is not always a boon. Because lots of other games do flexibility already, and it doesn't pay to do what everyone else is already doing. Because restriction can be a source of inspiration. Because not everybody wants flexibility, and those wo do can already getit elsewhere...

There's a whole ton of reasons. It ain't broke - don't fix it.

 

[Desdichado]

Am I the only one who did not read deconstructing the classes as no class point buy? I assumed it referred to better guidelines from WotC on class tweaking and design.

I'm all in favor of that. I find myself straining against the classes interpretation of the archetype vs. my own interpretation quite frequently.