|
In my opinion. The link: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/09/fighter_a-go-go . I really hope they are not planning on just rehashing the 3E fighter. Not to mention Im more worried then ever about where they plan to take 5E. Still early in the design process so I might just be wrooying for nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always a fan of less classes with more customisation, rather than multiplying the base classes, so it sounds promising to me.
Personally, I see no need for classes like samurai, cavalier, barbarian, etcetera. Although I'm clearly not going to get it from D&D:Next, I'd like a game where the only class choices were fighter, thief, cleric and magic-user - each customisable in as many directions as necessary to describe whatever character you wanted.
I doubt however that anything in 5E will be just a simple "rehash" of any thing from D&D's prior incarnations.
Me too - except for those things common to all editions, I guess..
I'm always a fan of less classes with more customisation, rather than multiplying the base classes, so it sounds promising to me.
Personally, I see no need for classes like samurai, cavalier, barbarian...
DRAW STEEL, SIR! This outrage will not go unchallenged!
In my opinion. The link: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/09/fighter_a-go-go . I really hope they are not planning on just rehashing the 3E fighter. Not to mention Im more worried then ever about where they plan to take 5E. Still early in the design process so I might just be wrooying for nothing.
I wouldn't get bent out of shape over some random guy's blog.
|
|
I suppose my worrry is that they will offer nothing to fighters in terms of new rules and aoptions. As much as I liked 3E the fighters imo were just blamd and boring. I have other issues with the class but not going to derail my own thread. I was looking through the 2E PHB and fighters were the s?&!. You received more as a class and at high levels you eventually received an army. Yes you can do that with Leadership as a feat yet in 2E that was one of the advatages of the Fighter. Last thing I want to see is more of the same in 5E.
Eaten post, nuuuu!
Shorter version: the article was promising to me. I think locking Fighters, by the rules alone, into a specific format is bad. Give the player options to build their character the way they want to, be it a master-at-arms, soldier/general, tank, dexterity-based, whatever. Fighters have always been the generic "front-line" guy, though, so if you're looking for some stroke of brilliance that reinvents the class, I wouldn't look towards the next D&D for that. At best, I'd say you can hope that they allow you to mostly replicate the style of Fighter you prefer from whatever edition.
|
|
It depends on what they mean by cutomizing the fighter. I want my Fighter to do more then just swing and hit stuff. I would like for them to have access to more skills and better abilites as you go up in class level. In brief anything but the 3E fighter. I liked the 4E fighter and really do not want to see a regression of the class. I'm hoping the take a page from the book of nine swords and give the fighter some of the stuff in that book.
I think the article has a point. 4th edition really made fighters the most one dimensional they've ever been.
I don't know. I felt the 3E fighter to be most one dimensional of all the versions. It was all about feats and focusing on a certain kind depending on what weapon you wanted to use. Plus unlike the other classes you did not much receive anything interesting in terms of abilites. Swing and hit something for the most part. Trip something if you had the right feats. Grapple something if you had the right feats rinse and repeat. I'm not saying the 4E fighter does not have flaws yet I felt with the powers that I could do more in a fight without having to invest in a feat tax.
I doubt however that anything in 5E will be just a simple "rehash" of any thing from D&D's prior incarnations.
Who knows and I'm hoping to be proven wrong yet I'm not sure if the 5E design team wants to think outside of the box.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D.
Having focus is one thing, being able to build in a way that would allow other things is another.
I don't get this thread.
1) This sorta crying the sky is falling because a few rain drops are landing.
2) While I can see why somebody might post a thread like this...but why here? I doubt very much the people at WotC monitors these forums for feedback....why not go over to WotC's board and post it there. It might do some good over there.
I don't mind discussing D&D 5th and the new ideas coming from there...but this thread is not a discussion...it is a whine and complain thread....
I love the old Basic Box fighter. "You don't need any special powers. Having the best Strength, HP, weapons, and armor are all you need." Of course eventually they add some weapon powers, like set spear vs charge.
Actually, that would be kind of cool. What if a fighter got powers like in 4E, but they were determined by which weapon he was holding? Like the Weapon Mastery trees from BECMI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should check out the Dragon Age rpg then.
I'm always a fan of less classes with more customisation, rather than multiplying the base classes, so it sounds promising to me.
Personally, I see no need for classes like samurai, cavalier, barbarian, etcetera. Although I'm clearly not going to get it from D&D:Next, I'd like a game where the only class choices were fighter, thief, cleric and magic-user - each customisable in as many directions as necessary to describe whatever character you wanted.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
In 3rd, I think the problem might BE the feats. On the surface, it looks like options are being added, but in reality you were able to do those things before. Now it might feel punitive to try and do neat tricks without the feats, and you only have room to try a couple of trees at the most.
IMO, the reason the 3.0/3.5 fighter fell flat for many is twofold: One, many of the feats weren't very sexy. +1 to hit, +2 to a maneuver, etc, while arguably effective, just aren't very exciting. Basically, the fighter's class ability was "pick a bunch of extra things that evryone else also gets." There just weren't enough fighter-only feats.
Second, the feats didn't scale well with level. There should have been feats that let fighters do awesome cool stuff at high levels; honestly, a lot of the Epic combat feats probably should have been available to fighters after level 12-15 or so. If fighters had had options like "shoot arrows at every enemy within short range" and "swing my sword under a flying foe so hard that a vacuum grounds it" then they probably would have fared better.
Not to say that you can't make an effective high level fighter in 3.5 - I once bult one that could average 250 points of damage a round in 3.5 core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the Fighter just being "a menu of options" as the blog says. In my experience, the term "Fighter" is just a catch-all class that encompasses every kind of person utilizing combat, at the exclusion of class feature-specific actions(sneak attacks, spells, smites, etc).
I loved the customization aspect of the 3e Fighter; it could be any combination of weapon specialist you could imagine. For me, the "feat taxes" were it's class features; it was a very "build your own" sort of class. It could fill multiple (non-magic) roles in the party; meat-shield, damage dealer, ranged combatant, etc. Being a fan of multiclassing, the Fighter class was an amazing "ingredient" to add to different multiclass ideas. It worked nicely if another class needed a little melee buffing. I was sorely disappointed when 4e pigeonholed this class into one role.
A menue of options sounds nice, but lets make sure those options are good ones and aren't boring or suck. Weapon Focus, Weapon Expertise, Weapon Specialization are nice benefits, but they're boring and do nothing that really motivates characters. In fact, options are great for a class that has a lot of build-in features. Lets compare the v3.5 Fighter (very option-based but "meh" on features) vs. the Warblade of Tome of Battle (very option-based WITH lots of features). The winner = Warblade. Here's why:
d12 HD, more skills and skills playing a part of combat, more versatility, options of powers/stances AND Fighter feats, stays competitive with other classes at high levels, easy 1-20 progression with Multiclassing/Prestige Classing as Options instead of requirments, has effects that break the "I hit stuff with pointy stick" mantra, synergizes with with other classes, and varying ability scores having a more profound impact on the character than Str, Dex, and Con and dump stats every where else.
If they're going to build a Fighter for D&D-next, it should be done on the Warblade chassis
I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D.Fine. Now make sure you take away the ability of the other classes to fight. Wizards deal with arcane magic problems, Clerics deal with divine magic problems, rogues deal with 'skillsy' problems. No overlap. After all, characters who can do everything are not very D&D.
Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.
Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.
Agreed, however they should not be aided in this venture via spells. Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might, Divine Power, True Strike, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph are all ways in which spellcasters level the playing field of melee-based character. Simply removing these spells would equal the playing field a bit, at least keeping spellcasting classes 2nd to melee/ranged fighting. Really, it's only fair.
Agreed, however they should not be aided in this venture via spells. Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might, Divine Power, True Strike, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph are all ways in which spellcasters level the playing field of melee-based character. Simply removing these spells would equal the playing field a bit, at least keeping spellcasting classes 2nd to melee/ranged fighting. Really, it's only fair.
Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.
I would want them to keep Invisibility. Maybe make SOME spells specialist only like Enervation. Perhaps we could keep the shapechange spells and make them multiround castings. Something you would need intelligence (Intel not IQ) to use. As for True Strike, Divine Power and such I like defensive buffs for spellcasters, I never have liked offensive buffs. Tenser's Transformation was a munchkin from the start.
I would want to keep Offensive buffs for the Ranger and Paladin.
Agreed, however they should not be aided in this venture via spells. Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might, Divine Power, True Strike, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph are all ways in which spellcasters level the playing field of melee-based character. Simply removing these spells would equal the playing field a bit, at least keeping spellcasting classes 2nd to melee/ranged fighting. Really, it's only fair.
Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.
I would want them to keep Invisibility. Maybe make SOME spells specialist only like Enervation. Perhaps we could keep the shapechange spells and make them multiround castings. Something you would need intelligence (Intel not IQ) to use. As for True Strike, Divine Power and such I like defensive buffs for spellcasters, I never have liked offensive buffs. Tenser's Transformation was a munchkin from the start.
I would want to keep Offensive buffs for the Ranger and Paladin.
Invisibility is fine, so long as after that attack, it's no longer active. Greater Invisibility is plainly broken unless you have access to other extra-sensory preceptions (some monsters do, many don't). Enervation should remain off the grid. I can't really recall any person being happy character levels (and thus, remember what was taken at what level and such) plus it opens the problem of RAI vs. RAW. It's just to problematic of a spell IMO. Defensive buffs are ok, but True Strike is far from that, espically in spontaneous-caster's hands and Quicken Spells (from a v3.5 standpoint). Divine Power is straight up "Turn Cleric into Tank" mode. It simulates having everything the fighter has except feats and the Fighter-specific feats....just aren't a good just aren't good enough to off-set cleric spells. Righteous Might stacks with Divine Power to create an ultimite juggernaut. At these levels, why would anyone both playing a fighter? Scrolls and wands emulate these effects for clerics so they don't necessarily have to have them on their stored spell-slots either.
The solution is the give fighters features that can be done all the time and the options for powers that can be used some of the time (like ToB's maneuvers). Give them the versatility of switching weapons and feats that help weapons like a Warblade's Weapon Aptitude ability. Features like PF's fighter that lessen the penalties of wearing heavy armor. You then reduce spellcaster's ability to prepare multiples of a particular spell. If you want to be like a tank and fight like a fighter, your going to be limited to that due to only being able to prepared Divine Power once per day and possibly (at later levels) crafting scrolls to gain a 2nd usage.
@Diffan-
I'm assuming you've been talking about 3.5, here.
I'm not sure what your objection is.
Every one of the buff spells you mention could be applied to your fighter; even the personal range spells like true strike, through items of spell storing.
Yea, but I've rarely see that (which, i know, doesn't mean it doesn't happen). Most clerics like getting into the thick of things and if there's a spell that's going to make them better at it, then they'll probably use it on themselves to match-up and better the fighter.
All enervation's negative levels do is give the target a -1 (to pretty much everything) per level for a few hours. There's not even a chance they'll be permanent. You don't have to worry about what you took at what level, because that mechanic never comes into play. And with a weapon of spell storing, your fighter could cast it, too.
Enervation:.....and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities). So, if a 5th level paladin gets drained of 1 level, does he lose his Special Mount (due to it being a SLA?) becuse there are some who I've seen say that when your dropped a level, you lose the level special ability. We just ignore the spell all together because people don't like dealing with the effects of it (same with Ability drain).
As far as invisibility is concerned, it gives you a couple of minuses to hit. Since you're talking about melee, the blindfighting feat - a feat most fighters would take as a matter of course - negates your opponent's bonuses to hit you.
When a PC attacks an invisible target, he first has to choose the correct square (1 out of 8 possibilities). After correctly selecting the square, he rolls a 50% chance miss. A fighter with blind-fight STILL has to choose the square and gets two rolls which doesn't incrase chances, just gives you more attempts with the same chances.
And they only last for 1 fight and take (unless you can control exactly when the fight starts) the first couple rounds to set up. You're using up a limited resource (spells/day or consumables) to get close to a fighter's combat ability.
Clerics are often required to play the 2nd melee fighter slot in many groups. They should be able to do it well.
The fighter's extra feats and extra focus on combat boosting stats, gear and feats should still leave him ahead. If the cleric optimizes his build for fighting, he'll be closer, but weaker as a caster: lower Wisdom, no casting feats or gear, etc.
About setting them up: Divine Meta-Magic (Quicken Spell), Divine Meta-Magic (Persist Spell), Extra Turning, and the like. Trust me, getting 2 spells off in one round isn't very difficult.
About combat duration: Say we've got our Cleric that casts Divine Power via standard action and Righteous Might with DMM(quick). He then moves into combat with a HUGE buff that probably will last the entire battle. He prepared these twice per day or has a wand of one or a few scrolls of them and there's a good chance he ends up being the primary tank (or meat-shield) that can heal, lay down magic damage, and buff. The fighter.....can't do any of that except be a good tank most of the time.
About party role: Clerics are the Secondary warroir, so they should do so adequately (meaning about average chances of hitting level-appropriate enemies), and for short durations. And this isn't to say that they should be bad at it, but never as good as the fighter....ever. And if he is going to be better at it than the fighter, it had better not be more than once per-day. To do any more puts the question in the Fighter's mind (um...why aren't I a cleric).
Cleric Optimizaton: CODzilla. But one needs only look at a few PrC to see how to abuse your Turning attempts. Ruby Knight Vindicator is a good example (burn turn attempts to retain spells or combat advancement) or Ordained Champion. I mean, any feat or ability that allows you to burn turning attempts is pretty good, espically when you only run into undead every so often.
|
|
I don't get this thread.
1) This sorta crying the sky is falling because a few rain drops are landing.
2) While I can see why somebody might post a thread like this...but why here? I doubt very much the people at WotC monitors these forums for feedback....why not go over to WotC's board and post it there. It might do some good over there.
I don't mind discussing D&D 5th and the new ideas coming from there...but this thread is not a discussion...it is a whine and complain thread....
True my original post could have been less of the sky is falling in tone yet I figured that the topic imo was worthy of discussion. No one is forcing anyone to read it let alone answer it. It sure as hell beats seeing another "what makes paladin evil thread"
|
|
Hopefully somewhere in between, IMO. One of the feelings I got from playing 4th is that they had several good ideas, but took them a step too far. My gaming group loved SAGA, enjoyed the Book of 9 Swords, but hated 4th Ed. I think encounter abilities work for fighters, but daily powers break my ability to suspend disbelief.In 3rd, I think the problem might BE the feats. On the surface, it looks like options are being added, but in reality you were able to do those things before. Now it might feel punitive to try and do neat tricks without the feats, and you only have room to try a couple of trees at the most.
IMO, the reason the 3.0/3.5 fighter fell flat for many is twofold: One, many of the feats weren't very sexy. +1 to hit, +2 to a maneuver, etc, while arguably effective, just aren't very exciting. Basically, the fighter's class ability was "pick a bunch of extra things that evryone else also gets." There just weren't enough fighter-only feats.Second, the feats didn't scale well with level. There should have been feats that let fighters do awesome cool stuff at high levels; honestly, a lot of the Epic combat feats probably should have been available to fighters after level 12-15 or so. If fighters had had options like "shoot arrows at every enemy within short range" and "swing my sword under a flying foe so hard that a vacuum grounds it" then they probably would have fared better.
Not to say that you can't make an effective high level fighter in 3.5 - I once bult one that could average 250 points of damage a round in 3.5 core.
I agree with both of you. I think it was that the feats were not that interesting and that some of the other classes could do some of the things the fighter could. It was that unlike some of the other class abilities and spells feats did not scale. I woud have loved to see the 3E Fighter keep the 2E ability to get an army thigh levels. It's not to say you can;t do anything yet if you try a combat manuever you need to take two feats just to avoid the AOO. The Fighter needs to be exciting in 5E beyond "I'm good at hitting stuff". Well no s$%^. I thought that sword you carried was for cuttting down tress and digging pits.
|
|
I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D.Fine. Now make sure you take away the ability of the other classes to fight. Wizards deal with arcane magic problems, Clerics deal with divine magic problems, rogues deal with 'skillsy' problems. No overlap. After all, characters who can do everything are not very D&D.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's pretty much how it worked until 3x (I have no idea what Skills and Powers did for 2e, more or less skipped that edition). Niche protection was strong in OD&D to AD&D 2e.
I think the article has a point. 4th edition really made fighters the most one dimensional they've ever been.
Funny. That's not what the article says at all.
Specialization into a single group of weapons is ok as long as fighters still have the same amount of options in- and outside of combat as the other classes.
But nice try to stir the flames of edition war.
I took this article different than others. The blog was just an excuse to get customer feedback through a survey. Sure the author did reminisce about the Fighter class though the editions, but it was just a vehicle to discuss the direction the Fighter can take in the future.
It was just a discussion on the different Fighter 'types' (without judgement) and then asked which version you would like emphasised next.
Model the 5e Fighting classes on the swordsage(more like monk)/crusader (more like paladin)/warblade) from Tome of Battle and we'll have a formula for success, whilst keeping Magic as 3.5 (with stricter rules for spell creation in the style of Shadowrun to avoid power creep).
The few indicators to be gleaned thus far put the Fighter out of the ballpark of predefined packages (like a swordsage or crusader). I think it will be more likely that we see a Fighter resembling (out of the box, at least) something akin to the 1E or 2E version, with a lot of "here's some cool things you can add instead of X or Y baseline progressions." Some of the "cool things" might include options that enable the Fighter to play like a Swordsage or Crusader or Samurai or Myrmidon or Kensai or...
Assuming they can pull it off in a way that still holds some semblance of balance and viability, I think this would be a very worthwhile pursuit. I'm still growing more interested in 5E/D&DN as the days roll by, and am increasingly curious how they're going to manage to hit their mark, given the scope of the task.
|
I liked the Fighter just being "a menu of options" as the blog says. In my experience, the term "Fighter" is just a catch-all class that encompasses every kind of person utilizing combat, at the exclusion of class feature-specific actions(sneak attacks, spells, smites, etc).
"A Fighter is a martial artist specializing in Armed Fighting Systems."
I meant to say that a fighter is a martial artist. There is a great deal of techniques designed to maim and kill a man or woman with a metal tool. Tai Chi Jian, Kenjustsu, European Swordmanship, the Arte of Defence, Egyptian Sword Fighting, Greek Swordsmanship, Roman Legionary Training, Gladiator Training, Mongol bowman ship, and many others. There are perhaps ten million different styles of fighting -- thousands of Arte of Defence styles and Kenjutsu styles alone.
Not to mention the fictional Light Saber techniques -- all of which are millions of unique styles (The Jedi Knights and Sith had many, many years of co-existence).
The problem with RPGs, especially with D&D, is that the Fighter class is locked into these feats and powers (for fourth). While they are good, the tendency is that in combat, people don't usually take a moment to describe their actions.
More on the fighter: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/16/multiple_attacks . Here hoping the optional combat manuvers dont suck or are nerfed to the point of uselessness. I do hope the class is more than just swing and hit rinse and repeat.
I would like to see something similar to the stunt system in the Dragon Age rpg. It is a nice slick way of doing a lot of fun and interesting combos of maneuvers without bogging the game down or needing 1000s of powers or feats to do them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope the class is more than just swing and hit rinse and repeat.
I would assume that's exactly what the fighter will be, with additional options for those that want to get more complicated. Simplicity has always been part of the fighter's appeal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope the class is more than just swing and hit rinse and repeat.I would assume that's exactly what the fighter will be, with additional options for those that want to get more complicated. Simplicity has always been part of the fighter's appeal.
Agreed. I've rolled up probably a dozen Fighters in 3e-PF at least, and the simplicity of the class was usually a drawing factor. Sometimes I don't want to pine over books for spells or maneuvers, sometimes I want an easy to play class and just go with the flow. Pick some feats, and done. The Fighter of old allowed me to get as simple or complex as I wanted, when the mood struck. If I want to swing a big heavy hunk of metal at an enemy's head, I don't need a fancy maneuver name and unique rules, just let me swing my hunk of metal.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what was so terrible about standard attacks? "Rinse and repeat?" You could describe them however you wanted, if you wanted to add more RP elements or just aggrandize. I always envisioned what kind of attacks my characters were doing each round, it was never as simple for me at least as "rinse and repeat."
The Fighter was another class that you got out of it what you put into it, and if someone doesn't put any imagination or forethought into what their character is doing each round, maybe they weren't really into the character in the first place?
|
|
In my opinion. . The link: I really hope they are not planning on just rehashing the 3E fighter. Not to mention Im more worried then ever about where they plan to take 5E. Still early in the design process so I might just be wrooying for nothing.