Hey Mike Mearls, When did the fighter become King of al Melee?

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
This is an open question in response to Mike Mearls recent article on the concept of the fighter. I may be misreading it but I am pretty annoyed with the flavor that Mike has envisioned. Mike, Iron Heroes was an awesome book but you really need to move on. It is 2012. My grieviences with Mike's article are layed out below.

1) When and how did you decide that the fighter is the Lord of all Battles without equal?  What is it about the fighter that makes him innately superior to all other "fighter" subclasses such as paladin, ranger, barbarian? Why play a different fighting class if they cannot stand up to a fighter in meele?

2) How can you look to the past and say that fighters are the toughest characters from a straight hit point perspective? They have always been equal to paladins and slighty inferior to barbarians and slightly better than rangers. 

3) Figthers did always and should always have the best armor available.  That is a given that was only recently broken with 4rth edition. This should be returned to fighters as soon as possible.

4) Fighters in any edition could not easily shake off magical effects untill they were very high level. Go back to Basic D&D and you will see how hard it was for fighters to save vs spells, especially at the low levels. Fighters should not be able to resist every spell thrown at them and keep on chugging as if it were nothing. ALL CLASSES need a weakness and that INCLUDES fighters. Non-combat abilities are no longer felt to equalize against combat abilites so ergo no single class should rule combat in all forms.

5) Your focus on fighters appears to be very biased. Especially since recent polls put fighters 3rd on prefered classes to play. The ranking I saw placed wizards first, rogues second and fighters 3rd.   I don't see where this gives you any mandate to make fighters the "King of Combat" since ranger and paladin were right behind fighter and only differed by 1 & 2% less of a score respectively.


I feel that fighters should be very good at meele. I do not feel that they should be better than the other fighting classes. They should just focus on combat in a different way. They should not also be unafraid of magical combat. Leave magical combat to those that acutally cast spells.

1) When and how did you decide that the fighter is the Lord of all Battles without equal?  What is it about the fighter that makes him innately superior to all other "fighter" subclasses such as paladin, ranger, barbarian? Why play a different fighting class if they cannot stand up to a fighter in meele?


Fighters are the good baseline. They're always good at melee. Fighters set the bar for everyone else. 
Barbarians might be better when raging or at least dealing better damage, but that's a spike and the rest of the time the fighter might be better. Paladins might be better when facing evil foes, smiting evil, or otherwise casting spells and/or using buffs. Rangers might be better at damage but be squishier, with far fewer hit points and lower defences. 

2) How can you look to the past and say that fighters are the toughest characters from a straight hit point perspective? They have always been equal to paladins and slighty inferior to barbarians and slightly better than rangers. 


Barbarians have always had more hp but lower AC, so they've taken less of a pounding. They were meat shields not tanks. Paladins are iffy, but they are less specialized than fighters. 

3) Figthers did always and should always have the best armor available.  That is a given that was only recently broken with 4rth edition. This should be returned to fighters as soon as possible.


Agreed.

4) Fighters in any edition could not easily shake off magical effects untill they were very high level. Go back to Basic D&D and you will see how hard it was for fighters to save vs spells, especially at the low levels. Fighters should not be able to resist every spell thrown at them and keep on chugging as if it were nothing. ALL CLASSES need a weakness and that INCLUDES fighters. Non-combat abilities are no longer felt to equalize against combat abilites so ergo no single class should rule combat in all forms.


Weaknesses are tricky. It's too easy for an adventure to stack monsters strong against one type of class making that player feel ineffective. It alsp depends on the type of magic. Fighters should be tough, so spells that can be resisted through brute strength or physical fortitude should be more easily resisted. 

5) Your focus on fighters appears to be very biased. Especially since recent polls put fighters 3rd on prefered classes to play. The ranking I saw placed wizards first, rogues second and fighters 3rd.   I don't see where this gives you any mandate to make fighters the "King of Combat" since ranger and paladin were right behind fighter and only differed by 1 & 2% less of a score respectively.


Fighters are the canary. They've been done wrong in the past, being made too weak in earlier editons and too much like spellcasters in early 4e. They're a good measuring stick to guage the edition, and see if it can make fighters fun yet balanced. 

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

I'm going to make a wild guess it is because fighters fight, all the other class fight + do other things.  You are basically saying a hybrid should be just as good at a specialist at their specialty.  To use their combat, explore, social set up, fighters are like 80, 10, 10 the ranger and barb are more 60,30,10 and the paladin 60,10,30.
I'm going to make a wild guess it is because fighters fight, all the other class fight + do other things.  You are basically saying a hybrid should be just as good at a specialist at their specialty.  To use their combat, explore, social set up, fighters are like 80, 10, 10 the ranger and barb are more 60,30,10 and the paladin 60,10,30.


I'm really hoping that isn't the case or there is atleast an alternative in the book, because that sounds dreadfully bad.
If a fighter doesn't get to be the best straight-up melee combatant, then what's its "hook"? What might tempt you to play the class in preference to the others? That's another open question.
The one question I have is why we can't have more than one "best" in the design.  Sure, a Fighter might be a high damage dealer, but so should a Rogue.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I agree that mearls doesn't convey a comforting message for barbarians, paladins, or their supporters, and I've gotten troubling vibes from the pally already (we may be going back to the days where Paladins are jack useless against anyone who isn't a baby eating sociopath, and even a few of those are exempt).

On the other hand this could be bad for fighters, if they have the highest static numbers, and no special abilities, they may be going back to basic attack-basic attack-basic attack.

Really this could suck all around.

Unless We're going to a system where by paladins and such are fighters plus, variant class, themes, advanced classes, etc. The fighter is a basic framework on which barbarian or ranger might be hung. 

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. 
If a fighter doesn't get to be the best straight-up melee combatant, then what's its "hook"? What might tempt you to play the class in preference to the others? That's another open question.


Personally, because it might be the class I want to play. Maybe that's how I want my character to fight. I mean that with no snark at all. If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play".
it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play".


*this*
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm going to make a wild guess it is because fighters fight, all the other class fight + do other things.  You are basically saying a hybrid should be just as good at a specialist at their specialty.  To use their combat, explore, social set up, fighters are like 80, 10, 10 the ranger and barb are more 60,30,10 and the paladin 60,10,30.


I'm really hoping that isn't the case or there is atleast an alternative in the book, because that sounds dreadfully bad.



1..  They already said you could swing things around a bit.
2.  That kind of comes with a class based system.  Certain classes are better at things than other classes.  You wan absolute freedom to make your barbarian the best fighter in the universe play a classless game and slap the term barbarian on him when describing him.  You want a game where your abilities are somewhat pre-defined play a class based system.  While you can shift things around a bit and remain a class based system, if you can totally shift things around it no longer is a class system, you are playing a classless system with fancy title son the characters.  
3.  What sounds dreadfully bad is  a morass of sameness that comes with making every class just as good at everything as every other class.  Even if it is done in somewhat different ways.  
They don't have to be just as good at everything, the simply have to never be irrelevant.
1..  They already said you could swing things around a bit.
2.  That kind of comes with a class based system.  Certain classes are better at things than other classes.  You wan absolute freedom to make your barbarian the best fighter in the universe play a classless game and slap the term barbarian on him when describing him.  You want a game where your abilities are somewhat pre-defined play a class based system.  While you can shift things around a bit and remain a class based system, if you can totally shift things around it no longer is a class system, you are playing a classless system with fancy title son the characters.  
3.  What sounds dreadfully bad is  a morass of sameness that comes with making every class just as good at everything as every other class.  Even if it is done in somewhat different ways.  



1. I don't think very highly of that suggestion, currently. Depends on how big the gap is, how much you can close that gap without taking a different class, and whether you need to give up combat ability or potential combat ability for it.
2. Instead of being the best at something broad, like combat, they can instead specialize in manners of approaching combat. Like a Barbarian who makes use of powerful charges and single strikes as compared to a Rogue who fights by making careful consideration of the angles of her attacks and weaknesses of her opponent. Same purpose, kill the enemy, different method of accomplishing it. And they can still have out-of-combat ability that doesn't need to be lessened to compensate for their in-combat ability. How fun!
3. You mean like every melee class choosing between a charge or a full attack? Or is this a reference to 4th Edition, because if it is then I don't understand. The difference between a Swordmage and a Barbarian in that game is startling compared to the common pool of options shared by non-casters in earlier editions.

Classes can be balanced in combat and still fight differently. Very differently. This is objective fact, personal taste as to how interesting those differences are not withstanding. With that in consideration, I do not accept that classes should specialize in combat, social, or exploration. This will only serve to dilute the variety that we would otherwise experience by letting each class bring its own unique perspective to each of these 'pillars'.
Maybe, Barbarian should be the 'old fighter', who mindlessly stands still and lawnmowers; while Fighter retains the 'new fighter' gimmicks 4E was nudging at.
I'm going to make a wild guess it is because fighters fight, all the other class fight + do other things.  You are basically saying a hybrid should be just as good at a specialist at their specialty.  To use their combat, explore, social set up, fighters are like 80, 10, 10 the ranger and barb are more 60,30,10 and the paladin 60,10,30.


Rather than assigning numervalues that can be misleading due to individual interpretation, let's look at the categories as:


  • Good

  • Better

  • Best


Everyone starts out with Good in each of the three pillars and gets a bump here or there to customize. For instance, a fighter may be good in exploration and interaction, but is best in combat; a wizard may be good at interaction, but is better in combat and exploration; a cleric is good at exploration. but better at interaction and combat; a bard is good at combat and exploration, but best at interaction. And so on. Customizing will likely allow one to boost how well an individual character is at their various pillars, with classes just providing the baseline.

Azzy’s Trivial Trivia, A Blog

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

—MechaPilot

Instead of talking about "best" (especially "best in damage," as if that's the whole game), we should talk about method of operation, not ignoring anything outside combat.

One might say "no one class should be the best at combat," but that's missing the point; you should rather say "no one class should be the best at the game."
Each class has its own approach to the game.
Clerics exorcise ghosts, banish devils, and ward away demons, and are the resilience of a party (never resent the role of party heal/buffer). They may also be the only class in a band of misfits respected in high society (be nice to the clerics).

Fighters
have the most weapon and armor familiarity and (according to previews) act the most times in a round, and may deal more damage in a normal, noncircumstance-specific attack. They are the straight-forward heavy-duties when it comes to combat.

Rogues focus on misdirection and wheel-greasing in combat, exploration, and NPC-interaction. They don't protect themselves with metal, but by not being present when a scape-goat is made, not being present when the gnoll has a mace ready, by knowing how to be in a safe place when death is on the prowl.

Wizards blast things, sure, but they also make things fly, teleport, and change from one thing into another. Why aren't they the best class in the game? They get worn out, they need time, they need space, they are little without their magic, but that doesn't mean their magic flees them entirely after 4 rounds of mess. Magic can also be dangerous for the user, but I don't know how much that aspect will make it into 5e (it was often/always the case with some spells such as Wish).

Another big concern expressed by "no one should be the best at combat," is really "I want something fun to do at all parts of the game." One design challenge is making sure each class's weakness is fun; a wizard shouldn't run entirely out of magic and twiddle his thumbs any more than the fighter should twiddle her thumbs outside of combat.
If a fighter doesn't get to be the best straight-up melee combatant, then what's its "hook"? What might tempt you to play the class in preference to the others? That's another open question.


Personally, because it might be the class I want to play. Maybe that's how I want my character to fight. I mean that with no snark at all. If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play".



The class you want to play?  So play it.  If I play a Ranger because I want to be a cool woodsman who has the whole "hunter" aspect to him, is an expert tracker etc.  I'll play him.  But I have to accept that there will be thins he is NOT good at.  If I want to play the same type of character, but still be able to be the "best" at melee, then I'll play a fighter, but give him all the same flavor that I would have given said ranger.  Honestly, you can pick your class and look at it as no more than a set of abilities (mostly).  Flavor it however you want.

For instance, if I want to play a Pirate, I might play a seafaring Rogue or Fighter, depending on what I want him to be able to do.  It's no less of a pirate, because that's what I created him to be.

My take on this whole thread is, that the Fighter darn well should be the "King of all Melee."  It's what he was meant to do.  As previously stated by others, the Fighter is a baseline.  Yes a raging Barbarian might sweep in and do massive damage and have higher hit points, but he will likely have lighter armor on.  The Fighter is meant to be a constant.  He is constantly effective at what he does, rather than taking peaks and valleys, or relying on specific situations to reach maximum effectiveness (sneak attack etc.)

I'm going to make a wild guess it is because fighters fight, all the other class fight + do other things.  You are basically saying a hybrid should be just as good at a specialist at their specialty.  To use their combat, explore, social set up, fighters are like 80, 10, 10 the ranger and barb are more 60,30,10 and the paladin 60,10,30.


Rather than assigning numervalues that can be misleading due to individual interpretation, let's look at the categories as:


  • Good

  • Better

  • Best


Everyone starts out with Good in each of the three pillars and gets a bump here or there to customize. For instance, a fighter may be good in exploration and interaction, but is best in combat; a wizard may be good at interaction, but is better in combat and exploration; a cleric is good at exploration. but better at interaction and combat; a bard is good at combat and exploration, but best at interaction. And so on. Customizing will likely allow one to boost how well an individual character is at their various pillars, with classes just providing the baseline.




That is a better way to phrase it, but it wont appease the people who want every class to be equal in every situation.  

The part that's got us worked up is the bit where they give him the most hp too.

Furthermore fighting may not just mean melee.

Archery is a form of combat after all.

I'm not saying every class should be able to go toe-to-toe with the fighter.

I'm saying that BArbarians and Paladins need to bring something to the table to make playing them worthwile in a fight.

Well barbarian does, I'm ready to lose hope for the 5e pally. 
The class you want to play?  So play it.  If I play a Ranger because I want to be a cool woodsman who has the whole "hunter" aspect to him, is an expert tracker etc.  I'll play him.  But I have to accept that there will be thins he is NOT good at.  If I want to play the same type of character, but still be able to be the "best" at melee, then I'll play a fighter, but give him all the same flavor that I would have given said ranger.  Honestly, you can pick your class and look at it as no more than a set of abilities (mostly).  Flavor it however you want.

For instance, if I want to play a Pirate, I might play a seafaring Rogue or Fighter, depending on what I want him to be able to do.  It's no less of a pirate, because that's what I created him to be.

My take on this whole thread is, that the Fighter darn well should be the "King of all Melee."  It's what he was meant to do.  As previously stated by others, the Fighter is a baseline.  Yes a raging Barbarian might sweep in and do massive damage and have higher hit points, but he will likely have lighter armor on.  The Fighter is meant to be a constant.  He is constantly effective at what he does, rather than taking peaks and valleys, or relying on specific situations to reach maximum effectiveness (sneak attack etc.)



I fully accept that my character will be good at some things and bad at others. I don't think that needs to be so broad as 'Good in Combat' and 'Bad at socializing' though. Instead, I'd prefer a character who is perhaps good at charging single targets, but loses his edge against multiple opponent. Who can intimidate and bully people, but has no real talent for manipulation with honeyed words. This is a simplification, but it gets the point across. No one has to be 'bad at combat', they can be bad at certain approaches to combat.

And that's where my 'Class I want to play' comment comes in. If each class is roughly equal in combat, but approaches it in a different way, then I can pick a class based on how I want my character to fight, instead of picking a class based on whether it can fight at all. Apply this same logic to exploration and social encounters and you've got the jist of what I want out of this game. The ability to build a character based on how I want them approach adventuring, without being overly concerned about whether I'll inadvertently make myself useless in a broad range of encounters.
I think this article can help 5e acceptance along in two ways.

1) It brushes aside fears that the martial support is going to be returned to it's third-class/bottom-tier status and casters elevated back to the lords of the universe.  In tone, anyway.

2) It might touch off an anti-martial backlash.  Not that 4e hadn't already done so, but this could give it new legs.  

The momentum from both of those could help get things swinging back towards the AD&D that Mr. Mearls has openly said he preferes.

The AD&D fighter was a bad-ass, by the numbers.  Best THAC0, best choice of weapons and armor, best saves at very high level, best hps (prior to the barbarian), most attacks/round, highest weapon damage.  Mind you, a number of those 'bests' were /ties/, and those that weren't were pretty marginal.  It was also boring and option-less, and advanced stolidly in basic abilities while the power of casters exploded as they leveled.

3e was more so.  Fighters got all the same 'bests' (with even more of the ties), plus more feats than anyone else.  And, if anything, they were even further behind casters, particularly the 3 top-tier full-casters.

4e took away a lot of these marginal numeric 'bests' from the fighter, but made it balanced.  The 4e fighter doesn't have the most hps (Warden), the highest AC (Paladin), the most attacks/round (Ranger - and AE caster controllers, really), or the highest damage with a weapon (pick a striker).  But, it's also not a bottom-tier class, not that 4e really has class optimization tiers like 3.x did.  At most it has two: supported (most classes) and under-supported (Seeker, Rune Priest, etc). The figher was certainly well supported prior to Essentials, and a solid defender.   

 
5e is going to have much-compressed 'math' compared to 3e or 4e.  That means a fighter can't have the kind of BAB advantage it had in 3e.  In order to keep monsters workable at most levels, the fighter's "best" at fighting is going to have to be very marginal, indeed.  A +1 like 4e weapon talent.  A damage bonus like 2e Specialization.  That's about it.  Hit points and AC, likewise.    In return for being 'the best at fighting,' the fighter seems poised to get nothing else. At all.  No out-of-combat abilities, no versatility, no peak power, no mobility, nothing.  

The 5e fighter will fight when presented with a foe who feels like fighting him rather than flying away or turning invisible or tricking him into letting it go or mind-controlling him into fighting his party (if they don't, likewise, decline the invitation).  It will fight better than everyone else, with it's 5%-better attack and damage bonuses, one attack roll at a time, every round, without variation or option.  It will be the AD&D fighter re-vivified. 

Hopefully there will be other martial classes.   

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The part that's got us worked up is the bit where they give him the most hp too.

Furthermore fighting may not just mean melee.

Archery is a form of combat after all.

I'm not saying every class should be able to go toe-to-toe with the fighter.

I'm saying that BArbarians and Paladins need to bring something to the table to make playing them worthwile in a fight.

Well barbarian does, I'm ready to lose hope for the 5e pally. 



i'm also intrested in what they will do with themes.
Barbarian might be a figter them that has a bit more hitpoints then the fighter with another theme.
but that would just confirm the fighter has the most hitpoints, as a barbarian would be a kind of fighter.

a paladin is a hibrid figter/priest.
he will be worse in combat then the figter when going 1 on 1 purly on combat skills.
untill the paladin starts using his spells and spell like abilities then they are pretty equaly matched.
I'm willing to believe that "best" here doesn't necessarily mean "We are going to design the Fighter to be Power Level 9,001 in fighting; no other class may be designed to match it in this regard." Hell, he might even just be talking about their relation to the other three members of the 'core four.'

Until we see a non-Fighter warrior class in action, and see how they compare to the Fighter in previous playtests, there really isn't any reason to freak out about "bests."
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
Awwww but everyone had so much fun yelling about how 4e was gonna be the apocalypse. I wanted to be the raving doomsayer this time.

Stupid AG making me be all reasonable. lol
I hate the whole fighter = He fights wank.  Every class in D&D fights, all of them fill their own niches in combat to.  Frankly the fighter fights thing is just an annoying bit of wordplay that has gotten way out of hand.  The fighter is seen by a lot of folks as some sort of super class that wraps up all aspects of the martial character into one package.  That concept needs to die.

P.S.  This is what Next is starting to feel like for me
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Runn... 
I think AG's got it though. THe fighter only has to do all that in comparison to the other members of the first four. Otherwise there's gonna be major design issues later.
The acknowledgement of #6 made me very happy.  They aren't just going to churn out another 3e Brokefest (at least, not intentionally).

For the record, I was interpretting 'in a fight' as meaning 'just slamming weapons around'.  So, comparing a Ranger or Paladin with no 'tricks' (spells, whatever) to a fighter means the fighter wins; the presence of the Ranger or Paladin's other class features would make it an even fight.  Not sure if this was Mike's intent, but that was how I read it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
This is an open question in response to Mike Mearls recent article on the concept of the fighter. I may be misreading it but I am pretty annoyed with the flavor that Mike has envisioned. Mike, Iron Heroes was an awesome book but you really need to move on. It is 2012. 

Just as players and DMs have thier personal style, so too do designers.  Mr. Mearls is a bit of a pendulum-swinger, I think.  He tends to over-compensate a bit.  I offer the "Magic of the Feywild" and "STR-based 'Templar'" articles as examples.  Faced with an under-apreciated game element, he favors the Tim Taylor school:  more power.

Some of us have been doing a lot of hand-wringing over the inevitable nerfing of the martial power source and resurgence of wildly overpowered vancian casters promised by 5e.  

This is his over-reaction to our over-reaction.  

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The acknowledgement of #6 made me very happy.  They aren't just going to churn out another 3e Brokefest (at least, not intentionally).

For the record, I was interpretting 'in a fight' as meaning 'just slamming weapons around'.  So, comparing a Ranger or Paladin with no 'tricks' (spells, whatever) to a fighter means the fighter wins; the presence of the Ranger or Paladin's other class features would make it an even fight.  Not sure if this was Mike's intent, but that was how I read it.



A very reasonable position and one that I think is dead on.  

I hope I don't get banned from my D&D group for agreeing with you Wink.
Personally I'm less worried about some marginal superiority of a fighter in combat, especially if Salla's right about the interpretation (although based on the numbers they were throwing around in an old L&L article I don't have time to look up right now), than I am about what this means for their design philosophy.  You see, 4e fixed cross-class combat balance pretty effectively, but they left certain classes totally out in the cold outside of combat (fighters in particular).  They had two ways of fixing this: they could have balanced the other pillars (and for the last time, this does not mean a "morass of sameness" where "everyone is good at everything," NOBODY wants fighters to be as good at picking locks as rogues or as good at diplomacy as bards, we just want him to have some narrow thing he can do better than anyone else in the other two pillars), or they could unbalance the combat pillar so that at the end of the day classes are balanced across the three.  They've chosen the second option, which means there's no longer any reason to balance the fighter's out-of-combat potential (also for the last time, there is no such thing as "baseline competence," it's a fiction in a world where difficulty levels scale to party averages).  And that saddens me, enough that I'm not sure I'm even going to play 5th anymore.  
To answer the question you used in the thread title...

The fighter became the king of melee around 1974. The White Box set made him a clear specialist in this. 
fighters were people with high strength, heavy armor, long ranged attacks, short ranged attacks, and small armies at high level. They were able to learn and reach the highest specialization in any weapon ranged or melee, and wear any armor, and studied military tactics, seige engines, and if their career was successful, they would become commanders.

But the fighter was typically inferior to the Cavalier on Horseback, or with a Lance, long sword, or Mace. Despite wearing any armor, the Cavalier and Paladin tended to have better armor by a step or two, though the Fighter had options those two didn't, like enchanted leathers, elfin chains, and so forth. The Paladin was often far more devastating with a long, bastard, or two handed holy sword, but the Paladin couldn't fall back on Bows of any kind, including Arrows of Slaying, or Swords of Sharpness. The Fghter could have an armory of magic items, the Paladin had a max of 10. The ranger with two weapons usually outshone the fighter in melee at lower levels, and Elven Archers or Rangers tended to best the fighter in Ranged battle, but the Fighter was usually wearing much better armor than either of these and could Grandmaster at higher levels. The fighter had nothing on the Thief's backstab damage, but with enough strength, multiple attacks, and later a death blow technique, the fighter could sometimes match or exceed it.

The Fighter is the Well Rounded Warrior, with many options. They are not a specialist in any one area, but may choose to do so. The Gladiator forfieted range to do what the fighter does, but better, then again, no missile weapons meant enemies at range would kill you. The Barbarian and Kensai both struck as magical weapons, the Barbarian had more hit points and the Kensai had more damage, but the Fighter had more options, got to wear enchanted armors, and unlike the Kensai, could use long ranged weapons without having to throw their swords.

The Monk was better at martial arts than the fighter, but the fighter could get bonuses from high dexterity and strength, and could use a weapon that struck as magical items, and didn't worry about touching acid monsters, and again, the Fighter had range advantage.

Note though by creating the Warlord, you've cut out a good chunk of the Fighter's awesome, particularly the awesome of higher levels. The Fighter is not the best at any particular aspect of War, but is still a good in all of these areas, unlike a Bard who is only a Jack in all of these trades.
Options are Liberating
Ok aside from having a bunch of low level mooks of dubious utility at higher levels, what exactly does the fighter loose having the warlord around? I mean what little I know of pre-3 editions leads me to believe that the subordinate fighters were just there, and that the fighter had no special ability to command or aid them. If I was a 3rd level sap trailing a 12th level party, I'd rather be with the party who actually has a guy that offers me the bonuses to survive and be relevant to the outcome.

Warlord is the best martial concept to separate from the fighter because it's something the fighter never managed to pull off. 
The acknowledgement of #6 made me very happy.  They aren't just going to churn out another 3e Brokefest (at least, not intentionally).

For the record, I was interpretting 'in a fight' as meaning 'just slamming weapons around'.  So, comparing a Ranger or Paladin with no 'tricks' (spells, whatever) to a fighter means the fighter wins; the presence of the Ranger or Paladin's other class features would make it an even fight.  Not sure if this was Mike's intent, but that was how I read it.


That sounds entirely reasonable and rational.

Azzy’s Trivial Trivia, A Blog

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

—MechaPilot

To answer the question you used in the thread title...

The fighter became the king of melee around 1974. The White Box set made him a clear specialist in this. 



Exactly, the fighter was always described as the king of martial combat.    5e is clearly going back to the D&D's roots in this regard.  

The fact that fighters can use a bow again is also good news.   It might mean that the fighter class isn't restricted to a mechanical role anymore.       

 


I agree that mearls doesn't convey a comforting message for barbarians, paladins, or their supporters, and I've gotten troubling vibes from the pally already (we may be going back to the days where Paladins are jack useless against anyone who isn't a baby eating sociopath, and even a few of those are exempt).

On the other hand this could be bad for fighters, if they have the highest static numbers, and no special abilities, they may be going back to basic attack-basic attack-basic attack.

Really this could suck all around.

Unless We're going to a system where by paladins and such are fighters plus, variant class, themes, advanced classes, etc. The fighter is a basic framework on which barbarian or ranger might be hung. 

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. 



Totally with you. I'll wait for the playtest but the vibes are pretty bad so far.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Ok aside from having a bunch of low level mooks of dubious utility at higher levels, what exactly does the fighter loose having the warlord around? I mean what little I know of pre-3 editions leads me to believe that the subordinate fighters were just there, and that the fighter had no special ability to command or aid them. If I was a 3rd level sap trailing a 12th level party, I'd rather be with the party who actually has a guy that offers me the bonuses to survive and be relevant to the outcome.

Warlord is the best martial concept to separate from the fighter because it's something the fighter never managed to pull off. 



A warlord is just a charismatic fighter who has managed to convince many to follow him in to battle for whatever gains. It shouldn't even be a class but rather a theme or sub-class.
Its like saying that General should be a class or sargeant. 
I gotta hit you with a big fat WRONG there.

There's a ton of difference between getting in the trenches and fighting people, and getting in the trenches and leading people.

The Warlord operates completely differently from the fighter.

Playing a fighter is about doing your job well, same for wizard, or rogue.

Playing a warlord is more akin to playing a heal-buffer cleric, it's all about helping your teammates do their jobs, and making sure they have the resources and opportunities to do so. 
Its mostly just a language thing for me.
Warlords were typically more like generals and would never be in the trenches period.
But I guess I can't really think of a better name either...

maybe the Bard is a better example of a trope that leads by increasing morale but doesn't cover the combat tactics part...

funny enough, with what I said below I think Sargeant fits  the description best.

Go get 'em boys!

Yes Sarge... 
Whats in a name?
In a game where attributes are called abilities and feats are called powers and perquisities are called feats?
At least skills are skills... but that'll probably change with 5E. 
Its mostly just a language thing for me.
Warlords were typically more like generals and would never be in the trenches period.
But I guess I can't really think of a better name either...

maybe the Bard is a better example of a trope that leads by increasing morale but doesn't cover the combat tactics part...

funny enough, with what I said below I think Sargeant fits  the description best.

Go get 'em boys!

Yes Sarge... 



The original party was inspired by the Fire Team... Seargent eh? Lacks the medieval flavor that the Warlord encompasses well enough (I dont like Marshall because in the US that is a relatively lower eschelon federal police) Many instances on television ... not just old Marshal Dillon etc from the western days.


  • Team Leader: Provides tactical leadership for the team at all times with a "Do As I Do" attitude. Equipped with the M16 rifle or M4 carbine. Is typically led by a Sergeant or Corporal. Sometimes a Specialist.

  • Rifleman: Is 'the baseline standard for all Infantrymen'. They are equipped with the M16 rifle or M4 carbine. The rifleman is usually assigned with the grenadier to help balance the firepower capabilities of the automatic rifleman.

  • Grenadier: Provides limited high-angle fire over 'dead space'. Equipped with an M4/M16 with the M203 grenade launcher (or newer M320 grenade launcher) slung under the barrel.

  • Automatic Rifleman: provides suppressive fire; equipped with M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

@Garthanos, are you in the military?

and actually I think Sargeant goes back to medieval france? It looks like a french word.

EDIT: Yeah I just googled it. circa 1200 France. Means non-commissioned military officer.