Fighter feedback for the packet

Very well here is a new D&D edition and we are all excited!

We got a Wizard who is the best of two worlds, with 10 (!) spells at level 1 with some tricks from 4e like at-wills and rituals while retaining his batman-like utility spells!
We got highly customized Clerics that can be pure casters (This rocks! It really does, can't wait to see this design concept extended to other classes such as the Wizard being more of a frontline fighter as well) or stalwart defenders.
We got a Rogue that is the freaking master of skills and out of combat interaction with colorful abilities that work very, very well outside combats and even inside he can do so many fun stuff.

And then there is the fighter. He attacks alot.

He is so less interesting than other characters that...He doesn't even got a second page, or playtesting notes. Am I the only one dissapointed at this?

Sure, there are themes and backgrounds that work like AD&D's kits and they look really cool. The Slayer theme is about as powerful as it is boring though. I'm sure, it will have it's place but couldn't WoTC pick a more interesting theme to showcase the class?

I did however like the Soldier background, it's colorful and has some mechanics that can help reinforce the idea of a well soldier.

I've yet to run a game (I will this sunday) to give a full feedback, but from the package, it's clearly that one class it's just one dimensional while others are fully fleshed and interesting characters.

Now some have said this is on purpose. They want to portray the different levels of complexity that you can mod down your game, and I'm fine by it. So here is my feedback:

Next playtest, give us a simple caster, and a highly complex, Modded up Fighter. Just so if the Fighter custominzation can reach the Cleric's.

If can reach them, then edition is fine and I'll be looking foward to it. If it isn't, then go back and make it so. All classes should be fun. No if's or but's. If the Rogue gets to have colorful and yet powerful abilities, so does his other Mudane friend. It's just that simple. 
It's just the most basic version of the class for playtesting purposes. There's obviously some degree of appealing to the 1e/2e playerbase going on, but I fully expect that in a few months when the character creation rules are released we will be able to build a fighter with more (and more interesting) options.
It's just the most basic version of the class for playtesting purposes. There's obviously some degree of appealing to the 1e/2e playerbase going on, but I fully expect that in a few months when the character creation rules are released we will be able to build a fighter with more (and more interesting) options.



I'm sorry but I don't think you got the point of my feedback.

I'm asking WoTC to give us a taste this so called "modular" design. I claimed I know current Fighter is the barebones version, to test how can a simple class stand next to a more complex one.

However our group doesn't have any beginners that could have fun with a class that simple. They would eye it and claim it's boring.

Also this is a fallacy: 2e/AD&D fighters could be some more interesting than auto attack machines. They even had some manuever rules such as grappling.

I understand we are missing such mechanics on the playtest, which brings us back to our point: Fighter, as currently is in the feedback, is as dull as you can possible get on a RPG. It's purpose would work to introduce new players and that's about it. That's fine.

I'm demanding that on the next playtest, we see how more fun the fighter can be to players wishing for more than just auto attacking. 
Oh, I see what you're saying. I just thought it was a given that we'd be able to build a fighter to do more than just attack every round once we got the character creation rules. But good on you for not taking anything for granted.
Oh, I see what you're saying. I just thought it was a given that we'd be able to build a fighter to do more than just attack every round once we got the character creation rules. But good on you for not taking anything for granted.



While it IS a given, I want to see it! I want to see what they got in store.

I'm sure all the negativity about the class would go away if they just show up how can you mod him up or down, as well other classes. People would get this game is more than just 3.X with some AD&D on the mix while robbing some random features from 4e.

We know D&Dnext is supposed to let players choose to play their way and we got a glimpse of that on the cleric, now I want this on the Fighter just so we can all rest our heads knowing they are making a good product. 
Oh, I see what you're saying. I just thought it was a given that we'd be able to build a fighter to do more than just attack every round once we got the character creation rules. But good on you for not taking anything for granted.



While it IS a given, I want to see it! I want to see what they got in store.

I'm sure all the negativity about the class would go away if they just show up how can you mod him up or down, as well other classes. People would get this game is more than just 3.X with some AD&D on the mix while robbing some random features from 4e.

We know D&Dnext is supposed to let players choose to play their way and we got a glimpse of that on the cleric, now I want this on the Fighter just so we can all rest our heads knowing they are making a good product. 


Agreed, but they've been pretty clear from the get-go that that's not what the first wave of playtesting was supposed to be about. I don't like having to wait either, but I think our efforts would be better spent critiquing what we do have than pointing out what they already know we don't have yet.
It's just the most basic version of the class for playtesting purposes. There's obviously some degree of appealing to the 1e/2e playerbase going on, but I fully expect that in a few months when the character creation rules are released we will be able to build a fighter with more (and more interesting) options.


If what they show for the classes is "most basic version of the class for playtesting purposes"
Um, yeah the Fighter got sent back down to the kiddy table. 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

It's just the most basic version of the class for playtesting purposes. There's obviously some degree of appealing to the 1e/2e playerbase going on, but I fully expect that in a few months when the character creation rules are released we will be able to build a fighter with more (and more interesting) options.


If what they show for the classes is "most basic version of the class for playtesting purposes"
Um, yeah the Fighter got sent back down to the kiddy table. 



Yeah, it boils down to "the fighter fights."  Why did they feel the need to deconstruct the class this much?