it's just not fun to me

I dunno, my players and I had a lot more fun playing 3.5 or 4th edition. My players got too bored of it saying "It's the same, but worse". They didn't like all the random mishmaxing of stuff from different editions. Just our 2 cents.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
Can you give any more details?

How many players? Which characters did you use?  What parts were particularly boring? Was it combat? Exploration?  Did you find particular classes less fun than others?

The more specific the more helpful for WotC (and other prospective players/DMs).
I want to echo what Stix said. The feedback becomes much more useful and helpful if you can tell us specifically what you did and didn't like, what did and didn't work, and any details of the interactions that happened at the table in those situations.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

Can you give any more details?

How many players? Which characters did you use?  What parts were particularly boring? Was it combat? Exploration?  Did you find particular classes less fun than others?


They used the wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue.
The player who played the fighter immediately hated it. Said it reminded him of AD&D.
The player playing the wizard was annoyed that they couldn't decide between vancian magic and at wills, and how much prose was in the spell descriptions. He also felt like he was stealing the spotlight.
The cleric and rogue did like their classes.

They hated the combat.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
Slightly confused as to why being reminded of AD&D is a bad thing. I love my first edition fighter. It's certainly less complex at lower levels, but that makes sense in context. 
Can you give any more details?

How many players? Which characters did you use?  What parts were particularly boring? Was it combat? Exploration?  Did you find particular classes less fun than others?


They used the wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue.
The player who played the fighter immediately hated it. Said it reminded him of AD&D.
The player playing the wizard was annoyed that they couldn't decide between vancian magic and at wills, and how much prose was in the spell descriptions. He also felt like he was stealing the spotlight.
The cleric and rogue did like their classes.

They hated the combat.

They were also very puzzled by the odd prices on the weapons, and could't figure out a difference between them. They did LOVE the advantage system though. And even though the wizard found the spells all prose-y, he liked that it was distinct. After we realized that he could't wear armor, he wasn't very happy about that. They didn't really like the way health was gained at level up either. All in all, they felt it was just 3.5 with a bunch of stuff taken away and some unneeded things added. I have yet to render judgement, because it seems this is obviously an extremely early stage
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
Slightly confused as to why being reminded of AD&D is a bad thing. I love my first edition fighter. It's certainly less complex at lower levels, but that makes sense in context. 

He said it was really, really boring. You just attack. Attack.Attack. ad nauseum
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
Maybe the fighter player should play the wizard and vise versa. Or drop the fighter and bring in the other cleric. 

How far into the adventure did they get? What did they fight? 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

^ This is something that I personally hated about non-4E "martial" classes in general - just incredibly boring and repetitive. Attack names at the very least can make you feel like an anime character, but choices and side-effects are critical if you want anything to be enjoyable in gaming.
They completed the kolbold lair. Also, we collectively hate the armor system. The heavy armor is just awful.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
I've been finding the armor system a little strange. As long as you have a decent dex score you never actually need heavy armor? What's the point of taking it? I guess if you gimp your Dex score, then I guess it makes sense. But a fighter with even a 12 or 14 Dex will always take light or medium armor all day.
^ This is something that I personally hated about non-4E "martial" classes in general - just incredibly boring and repetitive. Attack names at the very least can make you feel like an anime character, but choices and side-effects are critical if you want anything to be enjoyable in gaming.

My players always hated the 4e powers because it felt unrealistic. When you're all kitted up for battle and fighting for your life you don't really think about your super special secret technique moves. You just beat the everliving crap out of the thing that is trying to kill you. 

Maybe they could do stuff like let you use bonus feats to choose either new maneuvers or some static bonus. That way you guys can have your anime character (no value judgement, just quoting rowanpelt), and I can have my medieval knight/brute.

There is definitely room for all to be accommodated here. 
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
I've been finding the armor system a little strange. As long as you have a decent dex score you never actually need heavy armor? What's the point of taking it? I guess if you gimp your Dex score, then I guess it makes sense. But a fighter with even a 12 or 14 Dex will always take light or medium armor all day.

Yeah that's what we found bizzare. It's much more expensive and comes with a bunch of penalties, and doesn't give a good enough benefit to compensate. I was thinking giving it damage reduction could make up for the lack of good-ness it has. The wizard was really mad he couldn't wear any armor also. He always plays a gish type character, eldritch knight in 3.5, magus in pathfinder, swordmage in 4th.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
I've been finding the armor system a little strange. As long as you have a decent dex score you never actually need heavy armor? What's the point of taking it? I guess if you gimp your Dex score, then I guess it makes sense. But a fighter with even a 12 or 14 Dex will always take light or medium armor all day.

Yeah that's what we found bizzare. It's much more expensive and comes with a bunch of penalties, and doesn't give a good enough benefit to compensate. I was thinking giving it damage reduction could make up for the lack of good-ness it has. The wizard was really mad he couldn't wear any armor also. He always plays a gish type character, eldritch knight in 3.5, magus in pathfinder, swordmage in 4th.




I'm pretty sure you'd need a pretty high dex score to invalidate heavy armor. If stats are static through leveling then I think heavy armor is still very viable. If they increase like they did in 3e or 4e then I would have to agree with you, though.
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
Slightly confused as to why being reminded of AD&D is a bad thing. I love my first edition fighter. It's certainly less complex at lower levels, but that makes sense in context. 

He said it was really, really boring. You just attack. Attack.Attack. ad nauseum



I can second this feeling. We just play through the Kobold layer, but we are convinced we are missing something with the fighter, since he seemed to involve no tactics what so ever. Seriously dull stuff.
They completed the kolbold lair. Also, we collectively hate the armor system. The heavy armor is just awful.



What did they hate about heavy armor?
It appears to be the same as 4th and 3rd.
Heavy armor gives you good ac, but you can't use much of your dex to add to it.

Looked fine to me...
^ This is something that I personally hated about non-4E "martial" classes in general - just incredibly boring and repetitive. Attack names at the very least can make you feel like an anime character, but choices and side-effects are critical if you want anything to be enjoyable in gaming.

My players always hated the 4e powers because it felt unrealistic. When you're all kitted up for battle and fighting for your life you don't really think about your super special secret technique moves. You just beat the everliving crap out of the thing that is trying to kill you. 

Maybe they could do stuff like let you use bonus feats to choose either new maneuvers or some static bonus. That way you guys can have your anime character (no value judgement, just quoting rowanpelt), and I can have my medieval knight/brute.

There is definitely room for all to be accommodated here. 



So... feats required to do anything remotely interesting and/or unusual?

I must admit 4E martial powers weren't particularly diverse, but they still let you do extra stuff - inflict a little penalty here, a bit of forced movement there, hit an extra target over there.
Every character is going to have a fighting style that makes their attacks not just "attacks" - whether the style is determined by gear, training, whatever, somebody with a shield and flail fights very differently from somebody with, to get truly exotic, two spears.
Gameplay should make it so that it really feels different.


So... feats required to do anything remotely interesting and/or unusual?

I must admit 4E martial powers weren't particularly diverse, but they still let you do extra stuff - inflict a little penalty here, a bit of forced movement there, hit an extra target over there.
Every character is going to have a fighting style that makes their attacks not just "attacks" - whether the style is determined by gear, training, whatever, somebody with a shield and flail fights very differently from somebody with, to get truly exotic, two spears.
Gameplay should make it so that it really feels different.



I mean call it "class feature on level up." Let's say every level the fighter gets to choose between a selection of a few maneuvers and some static bonuses. I feel like calling it a "feat" has a negative value judgement associated with it, because feats are something that any class can pick up, and therefore invalidates a fighter's uniqueness.

I'm just trying to think up ways that we can both win here. 
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
You explicitly stated that you think Fighters being able to do anything other than attack is "unrealistic" and you don't like it. I don't think there is a middle ground to find, buddy.
Slightly confused as to why being reminded of AD&D is a bad thing. I love my first edition fighter. It's certainly less complex at lower levels, but that makes sense in context. 


If anyone says it reminds them of ADnD I think it is a great thing. ADnD was and is a great game to play. That a huge complement
You explicitly stated that you think Fighters being able to do anything other than attack is "unrealistic" and you don't like it. I don't think there is a middle ground to find, buddy.




There's all sorts of middle ground, so try to meet me there. I don't want *my* fighter to use them, but I won't stop yours. If you would reread my post I think you'll see that I've described a system that allows both. If you see a flaw in that system I'd love to talk about it.
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
Slightly confused as to why being reminded of AD&D is a bad thing. I love my first edition fighter. It's certainly less complex at lower levels, but that makes sense in context. 


If anyone says it reminds them of ADnD I think it is a great thing. ADnD was and is a great game to play. That a huge complement



It was a great game 25 years ago! I must say my eyes glazed over when I looked at the playtest fighter as 4th ed (despite its problems) completely changed my expectation of what fighters should be able to do. Part of me wants to be able to go back to AD&D but I want some choices.

A big worry of mine is compatability. Since it appears to be based mostly on 3.5, think I'd be able to port things from 3.5 over to this edition? That would solve a lot of my worrys for the system.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
 

It was a great game 25 years ago! I must say my eyes glazed over when I looked at the playtest fighter as 4th ed (despite its problems) completely changed my expectation of what fighters should be able to do. Part of me wants to be able to go back to AD&D but I want some choices.




Can't we have both? Just create modular level ups where you can choose between a new maneuver (or group of maneuvers) and more static bonuses like weapon spec.

Let them be customized on each level up, it'd need to be balanced mathematically, but the combination seems to be supportable.

edit: grammar 
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
The Wizard can just Ray of Frost his problems away.

The Fighter has nothing going for him.



I do like the tank-y Cleric, and the rules-light skill system! The new monster set-up is wonderful, too. But that Fighter needs some serious work. I'd kill to see a full race list. 
Shaman: "Why doesn't the squirrel shoot the wizard?" DM: "Because the last squirrel who tried to shoot the wizard missed, then was pulled out of his tree and incinerated." Wizard: "He has a point."
The playtest fighter is obviously built only for attacking.  Let your fighter take the "magic-user" theme and he will be able to spam cantrips at will. Or do you think themes are class related?

Sorry for my english, tell me if I couldn't explain the concepts correctly.
The Wizard can just Ray of Frost his problems away.

The Fighter has nothing going for him.



I do like the tank-y Cleric, and the rules-light skill system! The new monster set-up is wonderful, too. But that Fighter needs some serious work. I'd kill to see a full race list. 



I would love some more 4e-esque monsters. I did always love those. The fighter will probably have enough going for him at release. Remember that they still have to try to appeal to the more old-school player base (like me! Smile). We can definitely all meet in the middle in this edition. 
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
I dunno, my players and I had a lot more fun playing 3.5 or 4th edition. My players got too bored of it saying "It's the same, but worse". They didn't like all the random mishmaxing of stuff from different editions. Just our 2 cents.

(edited: Edition Warring) This is only playtest, there will be more options ahead.
I really hope this edition is better then the playtest seems.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
The Wizard can just Ray of Frost his problems away.




How can the Wizard "Ray of Frost his problems away"?

You have to use your action every turn to have a chance to immobilize an enemy. An enemy who can then pull out their crossbow and plug your Ray of Frost-ing ass right in chest.

Bloody hell, people. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)
Bloody hell, people. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)



I'd marry you if it were legal.

This guy knows what's going on.

Legal? Who needs legal? I know a gay minister... ever been to Vermont?
Bloody hell, people. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)

I showed my fighter this, and he feels dumb now. I do too.
I know this is in poor taste but...“4th edition - bad enough to kill Gary Gygax.”
Legal? Who needs legal? I know a gay minister... ever been to Vermont?



Oh. I'm not gay.

I'm a tree. 
Bloody hell, people. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)



My mind has been revolutionized. I'm saving your post as a googledoc so I never lose inspiration again. Not kidding.

Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
Then what would you change with the fighter/ rogue to make them more fun to play. the same questions for the armor and healing ect. 


My group will run it as is. Then we will run it with things we fill are left out. But i was to give it three lvls of chance before me and mine start adding things.  
Legal? Who needs legal? I know a gay minister... ever been to Vermont?



Oh. I'm not gay.

I'm a tree. 



I also know a druid (totally true, actually...)
Bloody hell, people. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.

Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.

Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.

(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)



My mind has been revolutionized. I'm saving your post as a googledoc so I never lose inspiration again. Not kidding.




Agree!!!!!!
I'm actually a big fan of the simple fighter. I like the idea that he may not have all the tools that the spellcasters have, but he gets the job done with brute force. Isn't that the whole idea with the fighter anyway?

I can't wait to see my players coming up with inventive ways to kill people...and I think the simple fighter really encourages that playstyle. 
I've removed content from this thread because Edition Warring is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from attacking editions!

You're welcome to disagree but please do so in a respectful way!

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the "Report Post" button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

Thanks!