Even with the options presented and of course, the improvisation, a Fighter will never be able to do as much as a caster. And this seems to be some sort of cultural conception of the fighter class at a global scale, and videogames have shown us this is quite true.
Let's analyze Link, everyone's favorite (?) hylian warrior. What can Link do besides throwing rocks, making cool sword moves, blocking with a shield and dodging in cool ways? NOTHING. And that's pretty much what fighters face. A fighter can cut a rope but the wizard may turn it into a snake. A player might have to waste 2 actions to light that rope on fire, the Wizard only one.
But what makes Link able to face Wizards, colossus and other beasts? His Gear! He gets elemental imbued arrows, he gets trinkets that let him make a shield of fire arround him, he gets leaves that let him ride air currents or shoot air currents to the enemies, boomerangs that make enemies dizzy, etc. Link, as a fighter, depends on his items to have utility, mobility, and open himself more tactical options. Just imagine roleplaying as a Link.
Another example, less known but still there... Adol Christin from the Ys series. Inspired by old school role playing games, Adol, our teenager redhead fighter, starts by doing nothing fancier than swinging a wooden blade against iroically wooden constructs. He can dodge, make acrobatic stunts, sword tricks, etc, but he suffers from the Fighter Syndrome: He needs Freezing Boots to hover thru Lava, Rings to blast fireballs to enemies, emela stones to imbue his blade with magic so he can hurt ghosts, etc. Adol is another cool warrior that depends on the treasure he finds to overcome his mundane combat options against much more powerful enemies, even gods.
And the same seems to apply to many other warriors in fiction, not all of them of course, ut at least those without the aid of wizards or other casters need fantastic gear to become really fantastic, as throwing sand into the eyes of an Outer God isn't gonna do much. The fighter class can be cool, and make your imagination flow, sure, but to have a similar utility to casters without them babysitting you, the above is true.
And traditionally, yes, part of the balance was that fighters had wider access to more magical gear. It's kind of hard to enforce that as a balance mechanism when magical items remain optional, though.
You know what's a better way to balance it than Legend of Zelda style? There's a semi-obscure game for PS3 called "3D Dot Game Heroes", and it's essentially an old-style Zelda clone with a lot of plot elements from other 8-bit and 16-bit games. The thing that they do with the classes is emblematic of how I would like to see D&D approach classes:
In essence, there are three classes - Fighter, Mage, and Gish. They all swing swords and wear armor and cast (the same) spells, but the Fighter has more HP and IIRC also does more damage with the sword, while the Mage has more MP, and the Gish is somewhere in between. It's impossible to get through the game with just physical attacks, because some situations just require magic; it's also pretty much impossible to get through the game with just magic, because you won't have the MP to beat all of the mooks or bosses.
I'd like D&D to do something like that. Give the Fighter the ability to learn magic, even if it only ends up with two or three spell slots in the end, and restrict magic enough that even the Mage will need to rely on its sub-par martial abilities from time to time. They're already moving in that direction, and away from hard-coded classes, by letting anyone take Thief skills.
Saelorn wrote:
Conan never needed gear to bes his Wizard foes. The one time he got a magic sword, it broke after he used it.
This topic has been rehashed about a billion and thirty two times a week. Frankly, it is what it is. Some people are okay with it and some people aren't. I'll go ahead and pull the curtain back a little though and reveal where this leads: people who hate the current dynamic and people who embrace it. After the DMG is out we will have a better idea of what the full scope of the Fighter class has to work with. Maybe there will be a subclass that puts distance between itself and the classic version of the Fighter.
I'm not trying to be snappy with anything above, it's just that this ground has been covered a lot, and it seldom leads somewhere that isn't volatile. It's mostly just a lot of longwinded "It's Broken" vs. "It's Fine"
Here's the thing, for me (and I want to stress this, FOR ME): Yes a lot of men and women who can be called 'Fighters' did get magical gear. Often it was a few items at most, maybe a weapon, a cloak, a ring, but more often than not, the item(s) in question was less 'POWERFUL MAGIC' and more "LOTS OF HISTORY BEHIND IT'
CVB wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
I like the math as a subject. But when I come to this forum, I am often fed up of the math. For me, D&D is mainly about role playing and imagination. I feel 5e is the best for my needs. I played 6 hours yesterday in the night, and it was great, though I played halfling rogue, and rogue is meh for many local mathematicians. I enjoyed it very much, and I am looking forwad to another session on Friday.
We play via Roll20 and Google+ Hangouts with streaming to Twitch, and even our viewers enjoyed it. We don't play in English, so I'm not putting the link here.
I wish there were more threads about roleplaying and actual reports from playing.
edwin_su wrote:
I do not agree with the premise that a Fighter without magic items isn't as cool as a Wizard.
CVB wrote:
Not this thread again.
spelley wrote:
You know, we actually need to see if the wizard doesn't need magic items to be cool too. With all their spell slots cut down so dramatically and lack of easy access to wands or scrolls, we need to see if they'll actually have the room to spare spells not devoted to keeping alive. At high levels? Sure. At low to mid levels, where most play? The jury is still out on that one.
I feel like the game has some serious playing to do before we can tell anything.
Dunno 'bout you, but in actual play, thus far the fighters in our games have consistently been the backbone of our groups. They carry their teams on their shoulders. They tend to save the wizards more than the other way around. They stay standing when others drop. They hit like freight trains.
They are the go-to guys. Even in the other two tiers of play they've proven to be useful often enough to be noteworthy.
I don't see the problem you see. In fact, I may be seeing the opposite.
CVB wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
If you want to keep magic in the game fantasic and open ended then you really have no choice but to allow the fighter to use magical items.
Of course, I really don't see the problem with it. In my games fighters can't wait to find a magical item. It's a core part of the game for us. I would honestly hate to be playing a 13th level fighter and have no magical gear. That just wouldn't feel right for a fantasy game. Magical items are an important part of the game for me. Even in 2e the use of magical items was listed under the class definition of the fighter. In this case, the wizard required a spell book to access magic, the cleric was subject to his god, and the martial classes had to access magic indirectly, but in the end everyone used magic. All that changed was how magic was accessed. In this case, magic is simply part of the world and it's not owned by a particular class or monster.
With that said, I don't agree that 5e has made magical items optional. What it did was remove the need for the +X item treadmill. In that sense you are not required to have a magical item to keep up with the monster math.
frothsof wrote:
Let's face it, wizards need cool gear to be as cool as fighters.
A fighter who doesn't find any magical gear is still a good fighter.
A wizard who doesn't find any new spells is... nothing.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ogiwan wrote:
Ogiwan wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
In the basic rules a GWF fighter is going to eclipse all other classes in DPR if the wizard casts haste and the cleric casts bless.
We can argue that they are too simple, but they are absolutely the fulcrum by which the party mows down the enemy and needing cool gear is not one of their problems.
Ogiwan wrote:
Video games often have very different advancement. To continually reward play you change gear regularly and frequently level up.
And, most importantly, they're single player. Link needs magic gear to be able to do the diverse things needed for a single hero to triumph. If playing a one-on-one D&D game, some extra magic gear would also be a good idea.
D&D is a cooperative team game. The fighter works with the wizard and rogue and cleric. They complement each other and all do things the other cannot.
Sifaka wrote:
Zappy wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Aldath wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Steerpike84 wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Fighters have a magical subclass they've told us about: eldritch knight. While we don't know exactly what it does, it's probably a fighter that can cast magic spells. I mean, what else could that be?Regardless, I am certain it is something that hasn't existed 100% in that form before and these arguments just might be moot points, huge wastes of time, if it's something really neat blending sword and sorcery in a way that casters do not get to.
The same goes with the warlord subclass, whatever it is called and whatever it does. Chances are, it's going to be able to do things that even casters can't do and do some other things casters do in different ways.
Judging from the playtest rules, this is the first edition of D&D that I actually WANT to try out the martial classes, ESPECIALLY with their interesting subclass options and powerful feats. They get more feats than casters on purpose, meaning they will end up with more feats/attribute additions and that makes them even more tempting. This is the first edition that I've seen high level martial classes as viable, interesting, and not underpowered compared to casters.
Instead of doomsday prepping, perhaps be excited for the things we do know are coming but don't know their implementation yet. It just might be bad ass, making all ten thousand threads on this same discussion an even larger waste of everyone's time.
Warlocks are awesome. There's never a reason to not play one. Unless you're playing a monk, bard, or paladin, then you may be excused. The rest though? Not a chance.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Sifaka wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I'm getting kind of tired of people acting like the Fighter is just "Roll a d20, then roll damage." If all you're doing is rolling a d20 to swing your weapon each round, then the problem is with you, not the Fighter class. Grow an imagination, or pick a class that does the imaginative work for you. But don't complain that the Fighter is boring because you lack the ability to think of interesting things to do.
dmgorgon wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
CVB wrote:
Zappy wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Foxface wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Sifaka wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orzel wrote:
A group of two 11th level adventures come to a bridge. They are Bip the 11th level Evocation Wizard and Bop the 11 level Fighter with GWF. Out from under the bridge comes two ogres (selected as Wizards has released an image with their stats from the starter set). The two ogres are 900 exp, just short of a challenging encounter.
Bop charges forward to defend his friend attacking one 3 times and then using second wind to attack the other one 3 times. Bop hits them on a 2. We will say Bop does not miss. Bop does a very average 30 points of damage to both of them.
Bip casts a fireball with his 5th level spell slot, using sculpt to not hurt his friend (he could use his cone of cold, but wants to avoid the Con save). The save for the fireball would be a 17 dex save and the ogres have a -1 dex so we say they fail. Each takes an exactly average 40 damage. They only have 29 HPs left so a bit of the damage is wasted. Likewise if Bip's spell went off first a bit of Bop's damage would be wasted.
Wow both characters using their most powerful abilities* managed to kill the opponents working together! The wizard is slightly favored because we set this up with 2 enemies.
What if they each only attacked one independently? Well Bop very likely kills his opponent in one round while Bip does not.
tl:dr There is nothing wrong with the fighter (top single target DPR)... parties should work together.
*Wizard uses a 5th level slot so he can Arcane Recovery.
I will wait for the PHB to find out, but it appears based on basic game and last verison of playtest that fighter come in two flavors.
Spam basic attacks all day long
or
spam basic attacks most of the day, while occasionaly useing manuvere dice
Also it is unclear to what extant, if any that a fighter can fill the defender role.
Lawolf wrote:
Meanwhile, it was actually a party of three: The 11th level rogue comes back, cleaning off the knife, and pointing to the whole nest of ogres he just killed by poisoning the food supply.
Ogiwan wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I started reading this thread, and then... couldnt be arsed.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Apparently, boring fighter was specifically asked for. Sorry, I mean simple. Never saw the appeal myself, but there it is.
People complain about it, but people complain if its not there either.
dmgorgon wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Aldath wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
There is a difference in kind between fighter and wizard, and people keep thinking it's a difference in quantity. Really, it's apples and oranges. 4e made the fighter and mage "equal" by making all fruit oranges. That's one way, but it lessened the difference in how each class played (the difference in kind):
- The fighters can defend against more opponents at once; the wizard can attack more opponents at once.
- Fighters are creatures of constants; wizards are creatures of moments. The wizard can deal more damage in a limited number of short scenes; the fighter deals more damage in a consistant stream, unlimited over the course of the adventure.
- The fighter buys equipment but keeps using them; the wizard levels up for or discovers spells but can't use them as consistently. This inverts when cantrips and arrows are involved.
Don't compare as if each could be explained with damage-per-round or price-of-equipment because you'll see compartmental inequalities and think that's all there is, like looking at a 2D cross-section of a 3D entity.
The question you should ask is, "what makes either class fun?"
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Aldath wrote:
CCS wrote:
Ogiwan wrote:
Plus, cuz "haters luv 2 hate". Some people aren't happy unless they are crapping on something someone else likes. It's a thing.
Emerikol. wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
cranebump wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Foxface wrote:
cranebump wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
They left it as is for spells that the PCs cast. This may not hold true for the Monster Manual, however.
Orzel wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
spelley wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
In the 1st Ed PHB it clearly states as for handling spells, the DM has carte blanche to: add, augment, delete, diminish.
"...no, guys, murderous mist is a pain..."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
_
But knocked prone and daze are not big enough bonuses to use as replacement actions. Those are only good as additive.
Lawolf wrote:
"Situationally better" is probably the best term. Dropping a book case on the raging witch should be more effective than just swinging at her while carting a bookcase to drop on an Elder Wyrm, not so much.
Dreamstryder wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
The rules say no such thing. Extra attack works by granting the fighter additional attacks when they attack as there action. It does no say the attacks must be the same kind of attacks. The fighter could combine multiple improvised moves with his attacks unless you as the DM explicitly say no.
In my case I will attempt to let a players character choices play into improvsied attacks as well. The player choose the champion arcetype? great improvsed critical will apply to all attacks he makes in my game, not just basic ones.
Every argument against improvsed attacks I have seen in this forum boils down to the same thing. I adjucate actions this way and they suck, or my DM adjuicates actions this way and they suck.
Well I adjuicate actions diffirently from you, even the examples listed and they don't suck. And all of us DMs do things diiffrently. an ineffective action in your game does not mean its ineffective in mine and vice versa.
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CVB wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Yeah. Giving myself advantage on my second attack, as well as to all my allies on their attacks, is totally lame.
I think everyone who gets knee-deep in this debate ultimately fails to recognize (or at least fails to be open about) just what it is they're fighting about.
If every class that appears disparate were brought closer together in terms of utility, spike damage, daily damage, etc., we'd be back to '08 and 4E. Plain and simple. For a lot of people, that's a return to the halcyon days. Not for me, but there's no accounting for taste.
Frankly, I disagree with anyone who says the simple fighter shouldn't exist, as well as anyone who says a simple fighter is a boring fighter. Please. You know what's boring? 3 PHBs full of classes that all use the exact same resource mechanics. Besides, the simple fighter fills an important cognitive niche: the regular person wearing metal armor and hacking away at monsters. If it's not the "fighter" that you want, then odds are good that the "fighter" wasn't the class you were looking for in the first place. You might want to try a paladin, monk, ranger, barbarian, etc. Or a wizard, if that kind of class design is what rocks your socks.
Just sayin'.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hmm...
I don't roleplay a fighter because I want to do damage like a wizard. I roleplay a fighter because I want to be the guy with armor, a shield, a sword, and get in the face of my enemy - after picking at them with my bow/crossbow from a distance.
Just like, when I play a Paladin, I don't play a lawful good exemplar of righteousness so that I can save every damsel and every kitten. I play a lawful good exemplar of righteousness because I want to play a lawful good exemplar of righteousness.
Insofar as being the fighter with "magic"... make a high elf fighter and take Fire Bolt. OH MAH GOD THE FUN.
Or make a Wizard with a high dex and fight with two daggers - or pick a race that gives short sword proficiency. All the spells with a shortsword in your hand makes you feel like a baws.
I like being a fighter. I like inventing new ways to use my surroundings and cut people. I also like having a high charisma because I like playing characters with a personality that is forceful - in a kind way. I play my characters because of the type of character I like to play. I don't play rogues because I don't enjoy the mechanics behind them. I don't play clerics because I do not want to be a divine beacon that relies primarily upon its spells. When I play a wizard, I play someone who is so deeply taken into his magical studies that he hunts for every herb, every component, and every focus by hand. I don't want to buy your 25 gp spell component pouch - I want to dig up each component myself, even if I cannot have access to certain spells.
My point is to say that a roleplaying game is about roleplaying and having fun in a game. Don't play a class you don't like...if a class doesn't exist that you want to play... play a different game that has the class you want to play? ... or work with a DM that will let you write a class.
I just don't feel like I need magical gear to have an awesome fighter or paladin (well... old paladins. I may change my mind with new paladins when I see them). I don't play D&D to crunch numbers. I play D&D to be inventive and imaginative - and stictly speaking from a psychology standpoint... that doesn't require me to be mathematical in my enjoyment.
Orzel wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DLfan wrote:
All these people talking about Conan in D&D need to pick up the module CB1 Conan Unchained and read what it says about magic in the world of hyboria. I'm so sick and tired of people saying fighters should be just as cool as Conan without first recognizing how much magic was nerfed in that campaign world. There is NO way in hell that Conan (even from the original novels) could deal with the fantastic power of magic in D&D without help. People need to accept that magic in D&D is ultra powerful.
Therefore, unless you want to nerf magic don't complain about the fighter needing magical items or powerful magical boons from the gods to keep up. I certainly don't want magic in D&D to be nerfed. I want to play in game with Wish, Fly, Teleport, Gate, and all the other powerful open ended spells. With that said, there is nothing stoping you from removing or nerfing magic. You don't need to play with every spell in the game either. 2e did a great job of that with all the historical campaign settings it released and my group had great fun with them. You can do as you see fit and create the kind of campaign you want to play. The default is simply that and nothing more.
Krusk wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
If only someone could have predicted where this thread was going. If only. Ih fownly. Effonly. effoihfzz....
ivstin wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Guys...Conan was a barbarian...
Ashrym wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Zappy wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Litania84it wrote:
CVB wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
So, we're all on the same page of what magic really is, right?
It's not just an effect in a combat based fantasy RPG. It's a manipulation of reality without physical interaction.
You are on a material plane, presently, and must interact with a digital translator to place your thoughts into the space of this forum. Even with technology as brilliant as we have, we need to materially interact with something to cause an effect.
Magic removes that interaction. You lace up your wand, buckle on your wizard robe, and convince reality to do what you want it to do without a comparable physical effort. That is hugely different from what a fighter does.
I have no problem with a wizard being able to outdamage me in a game. Most of the magicians I know in the rosicrucian world can out-ritual me any day. Why? Because it's freaking magic.
MAAAAAAGIIIIIIIIC.
Reality cheat codes.
I don't care how hard you stab someone, you're not going to stab them back to life. But a spell can magic them back to life.
ivstin wrote:
spelley wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
spelley wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Sifaka wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Sifaka wrote:
Sifaka wrote:
Every time we look at this in detail GWF Fighter > Evocation Wizard in damage and this is before we factor in buffs like haste and bless that a party that is working as a group is going to cast.
You can argue that the Fighter is boring, but not that it does not have a place as the single damage linchpin of the party.
If you want a more interesting "fighter" I would look at the rogue that has cunning action which is pretty much a free manoeuvre every round.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Evocation Wizard using arcane recovery for 3rd level slots:
2 cantrips 3d10
15.5*.6 + 31*.05 = 10.85 * 2 = 21.7
Acrcane Recovery Results in
2nd level x 3: (7+5)*.6 + (14+5)*.05 = (8.15)*3 -> 24.45 + 5*3*.65 (empowered Evocation) = 24.45 + 9.75 = 34.2
3rd level x 5: 8.15*5*2 -> 81.5 + 5*5*.65 (empowered Evocation) = 81.5 + 16.25 = 97.75
4th Level x 3: 8.15*3*3 -> 73.35 + 5*3*.65 (empowered Evocation) = 73.35 + 9.75 = 83.1
5th Level x 2: 8.15*4*2 -> 65.2 + 5*2*.65 (empowered Evocation) = 65.2 + 6.5 = 71.7
6th Level x 1: 8.15*5*1 -> 40.75 + 5*1*.65 (empowered Evocation) = 40.75 + 3.25 = 44
Total Damage = 352.45
The damage does go up as the cantrip damage is so close to the playtest packet version of scorching ray in damage.
Compared to a fighter with 513 damage.
Sifaka wrote:
Lawolf - I think the heart of the argument is in those spells you just listed. Many of which are awsome.
In addition level 11 is when a fighter goes to 3 attacks, so it will not always be such a large percentage gap.
With that said while it is fun to look at these numbers it is all a bit of a tease until we see the PHB. 
Lawolf wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Sifaka wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
CVB wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
CVB wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
I'm not going to read this whole thread,s so this has probably been said already;
Fighters are, apparently, the most popular class in this edition - all the playtest stats point to this. Fighters can do pretty much anything humanly possible. All you need is the imagination and wits to try it.
Let's face it: Fighters need a cool player to be as cool as a caster.
So, I want to point out that "new products" does not mean a "failure" of a previous product.
In any industry, products get evaluated and retooled. Look at the Electric Drill for example. They have been changed and tweaked for the last 30 years and Ryobi, Craftsmen, and other companies keep manufacturing new ones. Not because old ones failed, but because eventually you need to make a new product to drive new sales. That's normal operating procedure in the real world.
This means that the discussion really doesn't need validation of success or failure of any product or its usage of certain qualities (Vancian) or other features (Bounded Accuracy).
The company moved forward with a new product. The product is strengthened and enhanced by previous product experimentation. The present product makes use of a separation of intention and ability between casters and non-casters. The product is not flawed because it is the same or different from previous products. It is either Fixed, or Flawed, based upon its own merrit.
A Ford Focus is not a good car by comparison to a previous Ford Focus. It is a good car because it gives you what you want and you are satisfied with what it gives you. If you are not satisfied with what a product offers...
... find another product to fill your needs.
If your product allows for manipulation (such as if you can turn your cell phone to pull off both Sprint and AT&T towers instead of only one)... then do it. Likewise, if you have the Product (D&D) and a manipulation tool (DM) to make it fit your needs... do it.
No need to sling mud, gamers.
ivstin wrote:
5Shilling wrote:
I don't understand this argument at all. Fighters can do about a million different awesome things with improvization.
When people say they want more complex options for their fighter all I can imagine is that they are asking for 4E-style "powers" which will probably be included in subclasses, but honestly I'm glad 5e is moving away from those mechanics.
As for complaining that the wizard is "cooler" than the fighter I have to laugh. Is that why you play the game, to be the "coolest" PC on the field? If you need to be the coolest and you percieve the wizard to be the coolest, then just play the ****** wizard! 
If someone could give a solid example of a hypothetical cool thing for fighters to do that might help me to better understand what some people are asking for.
JDizzleton wrote:
JDizzleton wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
JDizzleton wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
I see where you're coming from. I think there's a fine line between the current maneuvers of the fighter and the much more tactical options that fighters had in 4E. It's tough to find the right balance. Overall though, 5e has moved to a more streamlined and simple combat system and the current fighter is a representation of that. Advocating for a much more tactically oriented fighter is kinda going against the design philosophy of combat fluidity.
My personal opinion is that between maneuvers and improvization, there is more than enough in-combat variety for fighters to have fun. I also think its silly to compare them to wizards and complain that they don't have as much versatility, for a variety of reasons.
In any case, I'm sure there will be additional manuevers and options in future martial sublasses that incorporate more tactical elements that make those players happy.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
On thing that is being completely overlooked by some people who think it's only a matter of improvising something in place of your attack is that with classes like the 3.5 Warblade or the 4e Fighter, the mechanics let you do useful things outside of an attack action on your turn. You could move past enemies without provoking. You could counteract when an enemy attacks you. You could move over and knock someone down on their turn when they try to hit your ally. These are not simply a matter of you using your imagination on your turn for your attack, these are things the essentially allow you to break the rules in a special way. I've never met a DM that will arbitrarily let you knock down an orc on his turn to protect your ally just because you think it's cool... unless you spend some kind of resource to use a codified game mechanic that actually lets you do that. No DM is going to allow you to ignore AoOs as your run by just because your think it's cool. No DM is going to just let you counter attack a hit on someone else's turn just because you want to describe it colorfully.
There are several problems that are irresolvable at work here.
1. Some people believe X is sufficiently balanced and other people don't. If you thought 1e,2e,3e, and 5e works then you believe X. If you think only 4e worked then you don't believe X.
2. Some people want wizard-like complexity on their fighter. Achieving this goal often leads the designers into unbelievable territory. Things like Dissociative mechanics or outright wuxia like manuevers.
3. Some people think the basic game is it and nothing is coming in the advanced game.
The fight is also between fighter lovers. The people fighting for the simple fighter are fighter players. The people fighting for the complex fighter are fighter players too. There is no wizard players keeping the rest of us down thing going on here. It is an intramural battle between fighter lovers.
The major problem for the designers is that they are agreed that they will not put out an imbalanced game. So if they thought like some on here we'd be back at 4e. They don't as is clear. They do believe 5e is balanced. So anything they build will be designed to that balance level whatever it is which means the caster and caddies believers are not going to be happy.
Solutions?
1. Lots of classes and/or subclasses for each of the major archetypes. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.
2. Simple and complex for each of the archetypes.
3. In some cases like the fighter, they might even go overboard and provide a continuum that starts at 1-simple and goes to 5-complex but has a bunch of features in between.
I agree that if done right you could approach the game as a simple chassis and then opt-in on complexity. It's called active and passive features. Passive keeps the game simple. Active features add to the complexity. Passive choices make your one option better. Active choices give you more options that together are as good as the one passive option.
Sidenote;
Even if the wizard was an improve class most of you guys with DMs that won't let you do things with your fighter still wouldn't be happy. They'd let the wizard do things that you would not approve of because it's magic and they'd block you because it's not magic. The fundamental divide is over mundane vs magic.
They tried a game that powered up fighters and watered down magic in a major way. The game was boring and not fun even for the fighter players. At least it wasn't for a significant portion of the playerbase. Others loved it yes. Those banging the balance drums were finally happy but basically no one else was.
Emerikol. wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Let's face it: Fighters didn't become popular because they were not cool or because they were not interesting. Fighters being popular invalidates the not cool or not interested because it's an incongruency. Popular means huge portions of the playerbase like them. That doesn't happen with something that is neither cool nor interesting.
Some players want additional options and added playstyle but clearly that isn't what is or is not drawing players to the fighter class to start with.
I'm all for having simple and not so simple fighters. Different people have different preferences and some like different fighters. Some of the opinions expressed so far are far too absolute and not acknowledging other opinions as valid opinions while believing their own opinions are factual. Some of the arguments make no sense with comments that break down to things like, "5e fighters aren't cool because Pathfinder wizards are more powerful than Pathfinder fighters."
It's just not that hard to look at the basic fighter and understand that it's meant to be a basic fighter so using it as a baseline to state 5e fighters don't have options doesn't make any sense. Discussing other editions or games to demonstrate that 5e fighters are neither cool nor interesting doesn't make any sense. What makes sense is discussing 5e fighter subclasses 5e mechanics and compare to 5e classes. Mechanics that exist instead of mechanics that might exist.
Let's face it: In order to support any statements about 5e fighters we need to use valid comparisons from 5e, recognize these are opinions from ourselves and others, and support our reasoning with the 5e structure and mechanics. Not making a valid comparison doesn't reinforce anyone's opinion.
Orethalion wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Fighter characters are cool. That is why they are popular. The "fighter class" hasn't always be good though. The Dallas Cowboys and NY Knicks have tons of fans but they haven't won anything in a while. They have fans DESPITE Jerry Jones and James Dolan. Whereas Florida sports teams struggle to get fans to stay for whole games or come on time whether they suck or are wining championships.
I see much of the warriors and mages issue on lack of DM guidance and lack of clarity of what D&D supports. D&D has gone from suicidal strategy to teamwork tactics and everything in between. From "Fighters carry the party at low level, mages at high level" to "casters are the lynch pins" to "everyone is almost equal. Really almost equal ain everything" and now "fighters ars the best killer but have very little utility from class, tricksters are in the middle, casters are utility but can spend some to get close to fighters in damage."
Ashrym wrote:
ivstin wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Gatt wrote:
CVB wrote:
Lets interject some honesty into this argument as I see some logical fallicies and some dishonesty in this discussion. Before going any further my belief is that the power levels are close enough but the fighter lacks agency and utility.
1. The argument that the Fighter is equal because I as the DM allow it to "x" which is against the rules is a fallicy. We are not at your table and judge things by the rules as presented not by what you allow at your table.
2. The fighter can do extra things as it goes up levels is false as extra attacks it gains only allows for extra attacks.
3. The fighter can do many things by improvising actions. Improvised actions are not a fighter class ability, it is something all characters. npc's and monsters can do often requiring extra rolls, reducing or doing lesser damage and causing low impact effects.
I also wish to call out a previous poster as being disgustingly dishonest by saying that Wizards and Co do not gain extra spells per level as class ability and that such a thing represents scrolls magically appearing in the casters hand. This is a class ability which represents the characters research and study in to magic in the form of discovering extra spells. You sir were being intentionally dishonest.
Action economy, low impact effects such as prone for example, a lack of active choices and a near complete lack of out of combat ability are what I see are the enemy to a involved fighter. I want people to have their simple fighter and their "involved, complex, active, etc fighter. I want us all to be happy.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Even shorter version: basic fighter is basic. Whoodathunkit?
I would prefer a progression for fighter power, where they may start off as damage or effect or utility, then as they level those choices increase. In addition, at later levels the fighter or any other non-hybrid class (rogue), can start to use damage and efffect, or damage and utility, or all three in one ability. So at the beginning the martial character may be very segmented, but as they level two things increase in regards to the tools they have available, and a mechanism to start combining those tools into one action. Adding some non-combat utility would be icing on the cake. This allows a martial character to specialize as they level, but they can always have a toolbox of abilities to use separately, even if those abilities are very situational in application. That is the same type of versatility granted to casters or hybrids.
For the thread title I have been thinking about converting some OSR type fighters over to D&DN. They may be a little over equiped as I think he has a +2 shield, +1 armor, +2 weapon, 2 magical rings, a magic helmet, and some other bits and pieces. And is only level 5.
Zardnaar wrote:
My fear is that if WotC releases a "complex" fighter, like the 4e fighter.....then the fora will erupt about how it needs to be nerfed.
(Hee hee hee. Its funny because Hasbro also owns Nerf!)
Orethalion wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I think we all should recognize that the devs of each edition had a different idea of balance. The 5e crew seems to have split the difference between 4e and 3e. Maybe it's akin to 2e who knows.
If D&D is every going to be dominant again, it needs a simple fighter. A fighter that primarily moves, attacks, and makes additional attacks as he levels. That is his primary tactical approach. Naturally as he levels other factors will come into play outside of his class such as magic items etc...
Now I'm more than happy if the simple fighter meets the more than reasonable level of balance set by the 5e devs. I realize that the balance obsessed will believe that the fighter is weaker. If though the battle master provides more options and is manuever based then hopefully that will meet the needs of even those people. That is the hope. That should be the goal of the devs.
In my mind the measure of a fighter is always going to be the how hard he hits in battle. Not everyone has to agree with me though and hopefully options can exist for everyone.
If though, one objective of the balance obsessed crowd is the elimination of the simple fighter on the grounds it is too weak then I oppose them. They will ruin the game and ruin it's market position if they alienate all those loving the simple fighter.
Edwin, I know you were merely giving your anecdotal experience but my own is rather different. I've always had at minimum one fighter and often two. It is an incredibly popular class and it wasn't multiclassed anymore than any other class.
GhostStepper wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
A pile of people in this thread seem to be missing the fact that we only have one subclass of each class right now. It's been said more than once that the Champion - what was the Warrior in the playtest - is the simple fighter subclass, and we'll be seeing maneuver-based subclasses in the Player's Handbook.
In other words, everyone in this thread is going to get what they want. Everybody wins!
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Here's a question: Would it be breaking anything if the Fighter could do damage with Improvised Actions?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Jynx_lucky_j wrote:
Jynx_lucky_j wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Readying your action means you give up your reaction (so you lose out on your reaction attack), and only gives you a single attack (so you miss out on extra attack). This generally means you will significantly reduce your effectiveness by readying an action instead of simply attacking (and possibly killing) your target in the first place.
CVB wrote: