D&D 5th edition fighter

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Needs things to do outside of combat and needs more to do in combat than "I hit it with my weapon. I hit it with my weapon again."
Needs things to do outside of combat and needs more to do in combat than "I hit it with my weapon. I hit it with my weapon again."



Just posted in the other thread that I could not agree more. We felt like we were missing something, since it involved no thought at all to play. Unless someone wants to just unwind and not think, the fighter character should probably be automated if the party feels it needs one
Yup. Compare the class features that the Fighter gets with the class features everyone else get. Everyone but Fighters has multiple class features. Fighters just get slightly better proficiencies and Fighter's Surge. That's it? Really?
I like the fighter being simple, but it would be nice to just see a little more options with them. From playing a lot Odnd I am sort of used to fighters being a simple character and a nice intro one. There has to be a better balance in this right?
they posted in an article that the fighter presented in this playtest package is a very simple one. The fighter will get more options as well, later.
One thought I've been kicking around about how to have some tactical flexibility in core without making the class inherently more complex than the people who like simple fighters prefer: why not have a fighter class feature be that the Fighter can give up half their damage on an attack to try a Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, or Feint (without giving advantage) as part of the attack? (Following the theme that rolling multiple d20s is viscerally fun)

This would give the core fighter a unique strategic role by giving them the capacity to affect the movement and combat potential of the enemy, while still allowing newbies to hack away and still contribute fully to the party. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.

At least he can carry twice his strenght and isnt encumbered! :D WOHOOO! yay for dwarf
One thought I've been kicking around about how to have some tactical flexibility in core without making the class inherently more complex than the people who like simple fighters prefer: why not have a fighter class feature be that the Fighter can give up half their damage on an attack to try a Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, or Feint (without giving advantage) as part of the attack? (Following the theme that rolling multiple d20s is viscerally fun)



I believe the gist of the rules is that the Fighter (or anyone for that matter) can already do all these things. But instead of an attack, it is a "contest" from DM Guidelines, page 1. For most of those, just run an opposed Strength check.

I agree that Fighter looks boring, repetitive and could use some interest class features... but, part of the solution may simply be (a) the player breaking away from the character sheet and using some imagination, and (b) adventures crafted to include lots of opportunties to use that imagination (i.e., furniture in the room to bull rush a foe into and over, environmental stuff, etc.).

Ill just say it again for good measure, and quote som of the other forum posts:

"The playtest fighter is a simple/basic fighter, and more option and cooler stuff will come later" .

That being said, i kinda miss the defender aura or defender kind of abilities the fighter had in 4th.... Its a little bit wierd to me, that he doesnt posses the same skill.  

Guess that will also be coming in the final edition  
That being said, i kinda miss the defender aura or defender kind of abilities the fighter had in 4th.... Its a little bit wierd to me, that he doesnt posses the same skill.



Well, you can always take the Defender Theme instead of the Slayer Theme. The Backgrounds and Themes are gonna be easy to switch around with the pregens, so I see no reason not to do so. The Defender Theme (on the Cleric of Moradin) gives you some really good defendery abilities, even just at levels one and three.

One thought I've been kicking around about how to have some tactical flexibility in core without making the class inherently more complex than the people who like simple fighters prefer: why not have a fighter class feature be that the Fighter can give up half their damage on an attack to try a Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, or Feint (without giving advantage) as part of the attack? (Following the theme that rolling multiple d20s is viscerally fun)



I believe the gist of the rules is that the Fighter (or anyone for that matter) can already do all these things. But instead of an attack, it is a "contest" from DM Guidelines, page 1. For most of those, just run an opposed Strength check.

I agree that Fighter looks boring, repetitive and could use some interest class features... but, part of the solution may simply be (a) the player breaking away from the character sheet and using some imagination, and (b) adventures crafted to include lots of opportunties to use that imagination (i.e., furniture in the room to bull rush a foe into and over, environmental stuff, etc.).



Right, but the idea would be a. that the Fighter is better at doing those things than any other class, and b. can do damage as well so they don't have to give up an attack completely to do it. 

And I don't think the Rule 0 argument really holds; nothing stops any other class from doing the same thing on top of a more interesting and flexible framework. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I'm wondering about themes and backgrounds.  It seems from the characters given that backgrounds and themes are kinda like the various build choices in 4e classes.  Like the rogue having cunning sneak, brutal scoundrel, etc etc.  I liked themes in 4e where they were something extra to add flavor to your character.  So you could be a fighter but take say the fey beast tamer and have an animal companion and such.  But from the way things look at least the themes seem to be just another name for class builds.  Now obviously, it's early but just saying, not liking this idea.

Backgrounds though don't seem to be stuck to the classes like the themes are, and if that's the case good.  They also seem to basically be the same as 4E backgrounds in that they just give skill bonuses.