Fighters: "Simple" isn't "Boring"

Been reading the threads for a couple days, and by far my biggest annoyance is the constant griping that fighters are now boring to play. Some people disagree, arguing that you should be doing more roleplay to spice it up, while others argue you shouldn't have to, or that you can't if your DM is jerk. My main annoyance with this entire thing is that nobody is forcing you to play a fighter. If the game comes out, and fighters are much closer to their 1st edition versions (basic attacks, more options from magic items at higher levels), then anybody who wants to play them can do so. And anybody who wants something with more variety can pick a class that has it.

Whereas fourth edition went to great lengths to make each class feel equal in terms of usefulness and complexity, it's easy to forget that this hasn't been the traditional approach for every version of d&d. In older editions, some classes were built to be more complex than others. Some were more powerful at higher levels but took more experience to advance. Playing a ranger was fundimentaly different than playing a wizard in every aspect, not just your options when attacking. 

And while fourth edition balanced allot of classes by giving everyone one of four possible roles, it also took away much of the varitey (which was pretty much the main complaint from the community)

5th edition seems to be an attempt to correct that. But by making classes more unique, it will also leave some feeling less complex or underpowered by comparison. I'm not sure there's any way to get around it (though the modular approach seems as good as any) 

So at the end of the day, your dwarven fighter will probably have less options than the gnome illusionist hiding behind him. But that's not neccessarily a bad thing. It just may mean it's not the class for everyone. 

I've played a fighter in both first and fourth edition, and while my fourth certainly has more options with regards to attacking, he's no more fun to play than my first edition character, and in many ways feels less unique.
I'm betting you can trade the fighters combat bonus, for example his +1 damage at level 3 for combat manuevers.
There's also the fact that regardless of 4th Fighter's powers, they were actually still just going up and hitting people as well.  I mean some of their attacks were just increasing W's of damage.  So you'd have maybe a 2W daily at lv 1, and at lv 29 there was a 7W.  Guess what, it's the same attack just more damage.

Now that being said, I'm not putting down 4th, I like 4th.  But I agree with the OP, it is kinda hearing people complain that the fighter is boring because all he does is hit.  There's also the fact that we are testing character creation yet so we don't know all or even some of the options available at creation.

But rewinding back to my initial point, even if the 4th fighter has a power that they hit and knock the person prone that can be done to varying degrees with the fighter now.  And yeah most likely there'll be feats to do such things.  I've also played a fighter in both 3.5/4th.  Actually the same character funny enough.  And they played the EXACT same.  I move up to an enemy, I attack, I do damage.  An odd extra bonus like knocking prone or defense minus here or there but it all amounts to me hitting them.  People keep saying that the 4th fighter is so much better because they were given so many options but really they weren't.

That and if you want a character to be interesting, MAKE him interesting don't rely on the class to make your character interesting.  My first D&D was my 3.5 fighter and he turned out to be one of my most favorite characters, and in our home game his story was developed to the point where he is a god now who ousted the Raven Queen(or will be...).  And he died just a couple games before we finished the 3.5 game.  But through other characters and story, he grew even more.  And he was just a "simple" 3.5 fighter.   
Alright. Let me just put on my polite-argument-hat.
So, from what I understand, you say that fighters are simple because of, what, tradition? And because of that tradition, fighters deserve its status, and anyone wishing for a simpler class should go there, variety be damned?

There's an underlying assumption there that I must question. Why are fighters the default, simple choice? Anyone who has any small degree of knowledge of physical combat would know that it is more than a simple exchange of pectoral muscles, yet the system presumes an image of the 'fighter' as a gap-toothed, clumsy, and ugly hulk of beefcake that can do no more than swing a weapon.

Now, if that is your mental image of a fighter, then I suppose I cannot fault you for wishing the class to be uncomplicated and monotone. After all, it simply breaks immersion for such a archetype to concieve anything cunning like 'trip the opponent'.

On the other hand, there exists a portion of the population that considers a fighter to be something along the lines of a competent...fighter, who fights. Man/Woman with weapon, armor, and training. The sort of fighter that these players are looking for is sadly non-existent. These players, myself among them, want to see a fighting machine not completely reliant on pectorals and biceps, but tactical choices, physical maneuvers, and cunning.

We are looking for a different sort of fighter than you are, and frankly, we're not finding it.

Sincerely,

Kultz

As I pointed out on another thread, each class should be as 'useful' as the others, but provide a different experience. 

Here's the four archetypes of gaming experience as I see it and have played it:

The Combatant (traditionally, the Fighter)
The Caster (traditionally, the Wizard)
The All-Rounder (traditionally, the Cleric)
The Specialist (traditionally, the Rogue)

Obviously, there are variations - Combatants can include Barbarians and All-Rounders also include Bards and Rangers, for example. But if you choose to play a fighter, it should be as satisfying an experience as playing a wizard, but in a different way. 

Let's be honest, the 3.0 and 3.5 Fighters were pretty awful,  and magic was broken. But let's suggest not only an improved fighter, but one that's customisable and can be fun whether you play a standard sword-and-board basher or a customised tactics-monster. Now's a good time and place to have this discussion.
@Mogmarine: Thank you for having a readable, and thoughtful post.

Sidenote:
There are some who consider the role of the 'combatant' to be shared across all classes. In such schools of thought, the fighter's role is diminished, and often relegated to 'physical wall with legs'. In other words, this is called a 'tank', in somewhat modern lingo. While the rest of the party 'DPS'.
Personally I do not agree with such concepts, as the fighter, armed with sword and armor, should be lopping heads off left and right.

Now, onto the thread.

For an improved fighter, let's take the Mearls' words. He wants the fighter to feel like Roland, Beowulf, etc. These are characters who has these qualities:
-Brave
-Strong
-Mentally 'tough'
-Cunning
-Motivated
-Undoutedly heroically powerful

Currently, the fighter has:
-strong

There's the traditional bias that a fighting sort of fellow must be mentally deficient, and that may be part of the problem.

Sincerely,

Kultz

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. 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.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
@kultz I would have to disagree with your argument about fighters in one respect.  While I do like 4th ed fighters, and 5th ed are closer to the old school 2nd ed so far, your character qualities listed for fighters are almost all subjective.

Brave, Cunning, and Motivated are purely role-playing decisions.

Mentally 'tough' is the one I do agree is not normally on most D&D fighters, but this is the player's focus on stats, not the game's.

Being Heroically powerful is already instituted by their strength and the first 3 of your traits that I mentioned from your list, making its mention moot.

Cunning and Mentally 'tough' don't even apply to all heroic characters from myth and fable, and all of them had detrimental flaws.  If you want to be cunning, play with a slightly higher intelligence, if you want to be mentally tough, play with a higher wisdom, and if you want to be the lady's man, play with a higher Charisma.  Don't assume that the mental attributes are all dump stats, and remember that 11-12 is the average for a human...  Most people insist that their characters have no more than one stat lower, so that means ALL characters are extremely powerful compared to the masses.
Now, onto the thread.

For an improved fighter, let's take the Mearls' words. He wants the fighter to feel like Roland, Beowulf, etc. These are characters who has these qualities:
-Brave
-Strong
-Mentally 'tough'
-Cunning
-Motivated
-Undoutedly heroically powerful

Currently, the fighter has:
-strong

There's the traditional bias that a fighting sort of fellow must be mentally deficient, and that may be part of the problem.



Except that out of that list other than probably Mentally "tough" and heroicly powerful, and strong(which really that and powerful are all the same thing), everything else is purely up to the player.  A player shouldn't need a mechanic to make him brave, or motivated.  If that's what he wants his character to be then he can play it that way.
There's also the fact that regardless of 4th Fighter's powers, they were actually still just going up and hitting people as well.  I mean some of their attacks were just increasing W's of damage.  So you'd have maybe a 2W daily at lv 1, and at lv 29 there was a 7W.  Guess what, it's the same attack just more damage.

Now that being said, I'm not putting down 4th, I like 4th.  But I agree with the OP, it is kinda hearing people complain that the fighter is boring because all he does is hit.  There's also the fact that we are testing character creation yet so we don't know all or even some of the options available at creation.

But rewinding back to my initial point, even if the 4th fighter has a power that they hit and knock the person prone that can be done to varying degrees with the fighter now.  And yeah most likely there'll be feats to do such things.  I've also played a fighter in both 3.5/4th.  Actually the same character funny enough.  And they played the EXACT same.  I move up to an enemy, I attack, I do damage.  An odd extra bonus like knocking prone or defense minus here or there but it all amounts to me hitting them.  People keep saying that the 4th fighter is so much better because they were given so many options but really they weren't.

That and if you want a character to be interesting, MAKE him interesting don't rely on the class to make your character interesting.  My first D&D was my 3.5 fighter and he turned out to be one of my most favorite characters, and in our home game his story was developed to the point where he is a god now who ousted the Raven Queen(or will be...).  And he died just a couple games before we finished the 3.5 game.  But through other characters and story, he grew even more.  And he was just a "simple" 3.5 fighter.   



Your mistake is thinking that if a 4e fighter can be played as a 3rd edition one then they are not different. You can play a 4ed fighter for damage, but you can play it in a lot of different ways.

Think about marking, stopping enemy's movement, Come and Get It and a bunch of other powers. The 3e fighter simply doesn't have these opportunities. Fighters should get the equivalent of spells in the form of powers or Tome of Battle maneuvers, otherwise they either become basic attack spammers or "DM may I?" characters.


I see a lot of people tallking about fighters being interesting to play because you have to imagine the actions and improvise. As a player I always hated those who did it. Kicking dirt in the eyes of an enemy is nice if you do it once, or twice, but if you do it all the time it quickly gets as boring as spamming basic attacks.
On top of that improvised attacks are always balanced by the DM and I'm against giving too much mechanic rulings in the hands of the DM (and I'm a DM for 50% of the time), because you'll have wild variations.     

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

There are a couple of reasons to have some classes be "simple" to run.

First of all, while I like complex tactics as much as anyone, sometimes I just want to hack and slash.  The fun I had with old-school BDF's (Big Dumb Fighters which are still over-all my favorite class) was in building the character and using what I had most effectively.

But I also think that we are fooling ourselves if we think that everyone can, or should, be running a character with as much complexity as a typical 4E fighter has at higher levels.  Some people just are not great tacticians, and simply don't understand how to choose what power they should be using, or when.  Whether we're talking younger children or adults who are never going to be invited to join Mensa, not having above average (or even average) tactical skills should not limit the enjoyment they have participating in a game.  
@kultz I would have to disagree with your argument about fighters in one respect.  While I do like 4th ed fighters, and 5th ed are closer to the old school 2nd ed so far, your character qualities listed for fighters are almost all subjective.

Brave, Cunning, and Motivated are purely role-playing decisions.

Mentally 'tough' is the one I do agree is not normally on most D&D fighters, but this is the player's focus on stats, not the game's.

Being Heroically powerful is already instituted by their strength and the first 3 of your traits that I mentioned from your list, making its mention moot.

Cunning and Mentally 'tough' don't even apply to all heroic characters from myth and fable, and all of them had detrimental flaws.  If you want to be cunning, play with a slightly higher intelligence, if you want to be mentally tough, play with a higher wisdom, and if you want to be the lady's man, play with a higher Charisma.  Don't assume that the mental attributes are all dump stats, and remember that 11-12 is the average for a human...  Most people insist that their characters have no more than one stat lower, so that means ALL characters are extremely powerful compared to the masses.

I think you're describing the Fighter-as-meathead, a hangover from the 3.0 era. We're not discussing some mook with a sword here, but legendary warriors in the making, much as the caster in the back is on his or her way to achieving Merlin-equivalent levels of powe.

So your suggestion that if I don't like the Next fighter I don't have to play one tells me that I don't need to play Next. Because I want to play a fighter. And if the Next fighter remains as this playtest fighter plays, that is the result. Because the Next fighter is not as fun to play for me -- a fighter PC fan -- as the 4e fighter.




I think we can reasonably expect that there will be fighter variants that have more tactical options in the future.  I can see Paladins, rangers, spell-mages, ninjas, etc all having spells or spell like abilities to mix in with their basic attacks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditio...




Wow. Clearly some lack of clarity on my part if this is where you think my argument was going.

A: it's not an appeal to tradition. We are discussing the latest in a long line of editions that span several decades. Each of which was built on the shoulders of its predecessors. While I am not arguing tradition for tradition's sake, only an idiot would attempt to build the next generation of D&D without looking at the former ones for inspiration or to see what they could have improved. An actual appeal to tradition would be me arguing we should all be playing first edition and never vary from it (a ridiculous claim since I wasn't even born when first edition came out) 

B: I didn't say fighters should have zero options besides charging forward and hitting stuff. I merely pointed out that the nature of the class might well lend itself to having less combat options than some other ones and that this was not a terrible thing. Again, in first edition, many of your abilities came from weapon and armor powers. And since the fighter can use more weapons than anybody, there's no reason he couldn't switch them up to change his playstyle. 

C: Finally, the module nature of this game lends itself to varying levels of complextiy and difficulty. Just because the bare-bones low level premade fighter is limited in his repetoir of abilities does not mean the entire class will follow suite. Wizards has clearly stated that they will be adding options for more tactical combat, and I can think of no class better suited to taking advantage of this than the fighter.

All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with having one class with a longer list of abilities than another, and in many cases, it wouldn't make sense for it to be otherwise. A classe's value does not lie entirely in what abilities they have in combat. And having less abilities is, if anything, more of a challenge. Higher hit points, higher defences, better weapon selection, and greater endurance are just a few of the fighter's perks that have nothing to do with how many types of attacks he has. If that's still not enough for you, than either play up the roleplay aspect (chandelier swinging, grappling, knocking down doors), wait for the tactical module options, or PLAY A DIFFERENT CLASS.
Alright, let me clarify my opinion.

I disagree that being motivated, mentally tough, and cunning are purely roleplay.

To explain simply: What the character is capable of directly affects the characterization.

I can roleplay a speech-making, world-saving, demon-smashing hero. Except he wouldn't pass any diplomacy checks. I can roleplay a gritty swordsman with a will of iron, except he falls to every mental-attack spell the enemy casts. I can roleplay a cunning swordsman who relies on tactical choices, but no matter how much I fuss and bluster, I am still relegated to simple 'base attack' at the end of the day.

To put this in perspective, imagine a Wizard class, whose only mechanical feature is 'magic damage' for 1d6/level+int bonus. Now tell the wizard enthusiasts that everything else about a wizard is purely roleplay.

Sincerely,

Kultz

Or I can PLAY A BETTER GAME where the fighter can do cool things AND be able to play up the RP aspect.

Alright, let me clarify my opinion.
I disagree that being motivated, mentally tough, and cunning are purely roleplay.
To explain simply: What the character is capable of directly affects the characterization.
I can roleplay a speech-making, world-saving, demon-smashing hero. Except he wouldn't pass any diplomacy checks. I can roleplay a gritty swordsman with a will of iron, except he falls to every mental-attack spell the enemy casts. I can roleplay a cunning swordsman who relies on tactical choices, but no matter how much I fuss and bluster, I am still relegated to simple 'base attack' at the end of the day.
To put this in perspective, imagine a Wizard class, whose only mechanical feature is 'magic damage' for 1d6/level+int bonus. Now tell the wizard enthusiasts that everything else about a wizard is purely roleplay.




+1

Oddly enough the Pathfinder fighter already does a decent job at meeting the criteria of the above post by level 3.
This is the mainlegacy of 4th edition. All classes should have equal opportunities. Maybe not equal mechanics, but for sure opportuinities.

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

[Some say] that fighters are now boring to play.
Some [say] that you should be doing more roleplay to spice it up.
Nobody is forcing you to play a fighter.

First my disclaimer: I have played every edition of D&D since 1978. I have enjoyed every edition of D&D since 1978. And with each edition, I have found that I did not enjoy the previous edition as much after having played the newer one. So, in this context, I am a fan of 4e. And I *want* this edition to make me like it so much that I don't enjoy 4e as much as I enjoy Next.

I find the "you don't have to play a fighter" argument to be a slap in the face and counter to what Next claims to be seeking.

I have enjoyed playing fighters since I first played a Fighting Man at summer camp in 1978. My 1e fighter let me pick both a class (fighter, of course) and a race! I loved the Mountain Dwarf fighter I played in 2e, especially when I also got non-weapon proficiencies to play with. I really enjoyed being able to play a fighter of any race in 3e. And in 4e I discovered the joy that came with having rules-based options as a 4e fighter that matched the quantity of rules-based options of the 4e wizard.

Each new edition fighter made me love playing a fighter that much more.

Until now.

So your suggestion that if I don't like the Next fighter I don't have to play one tells me that I don't need to play Next. Because I want to play a fighter. And if the Next fighter remains as this playtest fighter plays, that is the result. Because the Next fighter is not as fun to play for me -- a fighter PC fan -- as the 4e fighter.


  • My 1e fighter had a race choice. This was my favorite aspect of 1e over Basic -- class and race were two choices every player made. But the choices were very limited. 1e fighters were limited by its fewness of chocies.

  • 2e gave me a lot more choices of race (see my Mountain Dwarf comment). It also gave me kits, and non-weapon proficiencies. I had lots of choices beyond my armor, weapon, and race. But those choices were still not really combat based, like the wizard. 2e fighters were limited both by the limits of the fighter and the non-limits of the wizard.

  • 3e gave me tactical choices that made clear sense. It gave me a reason to set up a position for the rogue. It game me Feats to make my attacks do more and even to give me new types of attacks. 3e fighters were limited by the disparity of both options and power between fighters and wizards.

  • 4e gave me the exact same number of choices as a wizard, in every category of choice that a wizard had. 4e is limited in that everyone has too many choices in terms of number of choices at each decision point and the number of decision points (move, minor, standard, interrupt, reaction, opportunity, etc). But 4e finally removed the limit from the fighter class. It's limit is at the level of system design.


So I was hopeful that a Next fighter would still have these limits removed, and that the attention on simplifying combat would be at the game design level, and I never thought it would return to placing that limit on the fighter class.


Next fighters appear to be limited by the limits of both 1e and 3e: Too few options and too much disparity between the fighter and the wizard.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditio...




Wow. Clearly some lack of clarity on my part if this is where you think my argument was going.

A: it's not an appeal to tradition. We are discussing the latest in a long line of editions that span several decades.




Yes, it IS an appeal to tradition, because you're saying "that's how it's been done, therefore that's how it should be done."

That is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of "appeal to tradition"

it also took away much of the varitey


[citation needed]
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditio...




Wow. Clearly some lack of clarity on my part if this is where you think my argument was going.

A: it's not an appeal to tradition. We are discussing the latest in a long line of editions that span several decades. Each of which was built on the shoulders of its predecessors. While I am not arguing tradition for tradition's sake, only an idiot would attempt to build the next generation of D&D without looking at the former ones for inspiration or to see what they could have improved. An actual appeal to tradition would be me arguing we should all be playing first edition and never vary from it (a ridiculous claim since I wasn't even born when first edition came out) 

B: I didn't say fighters should have zero options besides charging forward and hitting stuff. I merely pointed out that the nature of the class might well lend itself to having less combat options than some other ones and that this was not a terrible thing. Again, in first edition, many of your abilities came from weapon and armor powers. And since the fighter can use more weapons than anybody, there's no reason he couldn't switch them up to change his playstyle. 

C: Finally, the module nature of this game lends itself to varying levels of complextiy and difficulty. Just because the bare-bones low level premade fighter is limited in his repetoir of abilities does not mean the entire class will follow suite. Wizards has clearly stated that they will be adding options for more tactical combat, and I can think of no class better suited to taking advantage of this than the fighter.

All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with having one class with a longer list of abilities than another, and in many cases, it wouldn't make sense for it to be otherwise. A classe's value does not lie entirely in what abilities they have in combat. And having less abilities is, if anything, more of a challenge. Higher hit points, higher defences, better weapon selection, and greater endurance are just a few of the fighter's perks that have nothing to do with how many types of attacks he has. If that's still not enough for you, than either play up the roleplay aspect (chandelier swinging, grappling, knocking down doors), wait for the tactical module options, or PLAY A DIFFERENT CLASS.



Great points, but I disagree with the conclusion.
Why can't the wizard be the simple class? Why can't the rogue be the simple class? There exists rooms for all classes to be bare-bone, but fighter has to bite the bullet.
Why wouldn't fighters being more complex be more sensible? Why shouldn't the rogue, or god-forbid, the wizard be useless in combat?
Because those classes are 'advanced'?

If classes are tiered by 'this is for children and this is for thinking adults', then the system is inherently terrible.

I'm not satisfied, I can wait for module options, I can roleplay or even seduce the DM to get what I want, but why do I have to do that? What sins have I committed by choosing to play a fighter that I must fight tooth and nail to do more than base attack? By what virtue of birth are the bright shining bulbs of brilliant fellows who choose to play a wizard entitled to complexity?

Sincerely,

Kultz


Each new edition fighter made me love playing a fighter that much more.

Until now.

So your suggestion that if I don't like the Next fighter I don't have to play one tells me that I don't need to play Next. Because I want to play a fighter. And if the Next fighter remains as this playtest fighter plays, that is the result. Because the Next fighter is not as fun to play for me -- a fighter PC fan -- as the 4e fighter.



First off, this is a surprisingly thoughtful post and I appreciate that. I guess my main question would be why you didn't enjoy the 5th edition fighter? Was there something actually bad about it, or did you just feel it was a step in the wrong direction? 

If you enjoyed the older editions enough to stick with them through to the present, why is a class that draws slightly more on it's older incarnations a bad thing? 

For the record, this is less of an actual argument and more me trying to understand where you're coming from. 
Ok, so while Dictionary.com might not be the end all of authorities, it provided me with this.

"An appeal to tradition is an informal fallacy which occurs when someone tries to argue that because something is or has been traditional, then that is therefore a good reason to keep doing it. The fact that something has been done a long time is not a rational basis upon which to argue the value or morality of any particular action." 

I am not arguing that we should all be playing first edition or that it was in any way better than the ones that followed. I am not arguing that the first edition fighter was superior to the fourth edition one. What I am arguing is that by merely having less scripted attack options, the fighter does not become inferior to other classes.

I sincerely hope that the module strategy will allow for greater complexity for those who seek it (I'll probably be one of them). I'll also point out that with no character creation released yet, we have no way of knowing what options the premade character might have passed up when being built. There could be greater complexity within the core rules we aren't privy to. But even if neither of these is the case, I don't feel that having less combat abilities makes the fighter less useful to the party. Having a heavily armored death machine stomping across the battlefield, shrugging off multiple blows,  to grab the evil cultist by his throat is never a bad thing (and something a wizard would be hard pressed to do)
I  can tell you from personal experience that I know a lot of people who like to just wear heavy armour, do lots of damage and kill things just by swinging their really big sword or axe. They don't want powers and a whole lot of complexity which is one of the reasons why they hated 4th edition, the Slayer came in much too late for my group but it wouldn't have mattered anyway because one class can't make you like a game system that you find horrible.
There is actually a consensus of sorts developing here - everyone's got their own idea of what a Fighter should be. Therefore, the rules should allow us to create that preferred fighter, within reason.
First off, this is a surprisingly thoughtful post and I appreciate that.

And I appreciate your follow-up questioning. I have placed your questions in bold, and my answers in regular text (assuming the forums don't change my text settings, that is!)

I guess my main question would be why you didn't enjoy the 5th edition fighter?
Because my enjoyment of the Next fighter is (and has to be, if for no other reason than my nature) inherently compared to my enjoyment of the current (4e) fighter. 4e has accustomed me to in and out of combat choices beyond "which target to attack".

Was there something actually bad about it, or did you just feel it was a step in the wrong direction?
I feel it is a step in the wrong direction. 4e removed the "the high level fighter is the wizard's bitch" stigma that 3e codified, and it did so right out of the gate. (It did this in the same way it removed the "the low-level wizard must grovel for the fighter's protection" stigma of all previous editions -- parallel class structure and development).

I had hoped that Next would maintain this design approach: parallel class structure and instead focus on simplifying the combat rules, the plethora of choices at each turn, and the heavy reliance on grid. But instead, Next appears to have returned to the non-parallel class structure, with the wizard having more choices than the fighter *and* making the fighter into the wizard's bitch, even at low levels!

If you enjoyed the older editions enough to stick with them through to the present, why is a class that draws slightly more on it's older incarnations a bad thing?
I did not stick with older editions through to the present. Each edition made me enjoy the new fighter *more* than I enjoyed playing the old fighter. In essence, I have considered every new edition to be an improvement on the one that preceded it. But my Next fighter playtest was NOT more fun than my 4e fighter.

I hope that the next round of playtest includes options that show that the stripped-down-to-super-simple structure of the fighter can also be applied to the wizard, rogue and cleric, and that the multiple-choices-at-each-turn structure of the initial playtest wizard can be applied to the fighter. If it can do this, then we can have parallel structure in the game.

For the record, this is less of an actual argument and more me trying to understand where you're coming from.
And I truly appreciate it.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
First off, this is a surprisingly thoughtful post and I appreciate that.

And I appreciate your follow-up questioning. I have placed your questions in bold, and my answers in regular text (assuming the forums don't change my text settings, that is!)

I guess my main question would be why you didn't enjoy the 5th edition fighter?
Because my enjoyment of the Next fighter is (and has to be, if for no other reason than my nature) inherently compared to my enjoyment of the current (4e) fighter. 4e has accustomed me to in and out of combat choices beyond "which target to attack".

Was there something actually bad about it, or did you just feel it was a step in the wrong direction?
I feel it is a step in the wrong direction. 4e removed the "the high level fighter is the wizard's bitch" stigma that 3e codified, and it did so right out of the gate. (It did this in the same way it removed the "the low-level wizard must grovel for the fighter's protection" stigma of all previous editions -- parallel class structure and development).

I had hoped that Next would maintain this design approach: parallel class structure and instead focus on simplifying the combat rules, the plethora of choices at each turn, and the heavy reliance on grid. But instead, Next appears to have returned to the non-parallel class structure, with the wizard having more choices than the fighter *and* making the fighter into the wizard's bitch, even at low levels!

If you enjoyed the older editions enough to stick with them through to the present, why is a class that draws slightly more on it's older incarnations a bad thing?
I did not stick with older editions through to the present. Each edition made me enjoy the new fighter *more* than I enjoyed playing the old fighter. In essence, I have considered every new edition to be an improvement on the one that preceded it. But my Next fighter playtest was NOT more fun than my 4e fighter.

I hope that the next round of playtest includes options that show that the stripped-down-to-super-simple structure of the fighter can also be applied to the wizard, rogue and cleric, and that the multiple-choices-at-each-turn structure of the initial playtest wizard can be applied to the fighter. If it can do this, then we can have parallel structure in the game.

For the record, this is less of an actual argument and more me trying to understand where you're coming from.
And I truly appreciate it.



More eloquent than I have put it. Bravo.

Sincerely,

Kultz

Been reading the threads for a couple days, and by far my biggest annoyance is the constant griping that fighters are now boring to play. Some people disagree, arguing that you should be doing more roleplay to spice it up, while others argue you shouldn't have to, or that you can't if your DM is jerk. My main annoyance with this entire thing is that nobody is forcing you to play a fighter. If the game comes out, and fighters are much closer to their 1st edition versions (basic attacks, more options from magic items at higher levels), then anybody who wants to play them can do so. And anybody who wants something with more variety can pick a class that has it.

Whereas fourth edition went to great lengths to make each class feel equal in terms of usefulness and complexity, it's easy to forget that this hasn't been the traditional approach for every version of d&d. In older editions, some classes were built to be more complex than others. Some were more powerful at higher levels but took more experience to advance. Playing a ranger was fundimentaly different than playing a wizard in every aspect, not just your options when attacking. 

And while fourth edition balanced allot of classes by giving everyone one of four possible roles, it also took away much of the varitey (which was pretty much the main complaint from the community)

5th edition seems to be an attempt to correct that. But by making classes more unique, it will also leave some feeling less complex or underpowered by comparison. I'm not sure there's any way to get around it (though the modular approach seems as good as any) 

So at the end of the day, your dwarven fighter will probably have less options than the gnome illusionist hiding behind him. But that's not neccessarily a bad thing. It just may mean it's not the class for everyone. 

I've played a fighter in both first and fourth edition, and while my fourth certainly has more options with regards to attacking, he's no more fun to play than my first edition character, and in many ways feels less unique.



If simple Fighters are not boring, then why are so many people bored with them?

Both fighter approaches have their backers and thus both deserve to be in there. Personally, I played a fighter in 2e on multiple occasions when the fighter was not my first choice solely to avoid rules complexity.

Tangentially, a freeform character who kicks dust in the eyes of every orc he fights is the same as a 4e character who always opens with Encounter powers A and B, followed by at-wills 1 and 2: repetitive and potentially boring, and neither are guaranteed methods of victory. No matter the edition, one always needs to bring something the rules don't codify; that's how tabletop RPGs work.

I do appreciate that different rulesets may affect one's initial concept of how to play. Did those who desire more hard-ruled abilities generally start learning with 3-4e? I learned with Basic, and was told, "Describe what you want to do; the DM adjudicates rules for it and tells you the result," so I see no forbiddence in rules silence.
Did those who desire more hard-ruled abilities generally start learning with 3-4e? I learned with Basic, and was told, "Describe what you want to do; the DM adjudicates rules for it and tells you the result," so I see no forbiddence in rules silence.



No, I learned with AD&D, played 2nd edition, 3rd, 3.5 and 4e.  Of those I've most enjoyed 3.5 and 4e (I go back and forth between which I like most but I think I come down in favor of 4th.  The one downside of 4e, in my view, was the loss of the level by level choice of class, allowing a fighter who found god while trapped in a cave in at the mines of Belagrass to now start taking cleric levels gave a real sense of change and character development, but that is a seperate debate).

I actually find myself more inclined to attempt crazy chandellier swinging attacks now than way back in AD&D when there was nothing to suggest I couldn't.  In fact just two weeks ago my Archery Warlord shot a magical flare out of an enemies hand before he could ignite it and signal for help, what power did I use?  Paint the Bullseye.  Does paint the bullseye mention that use specifically, not at all, the DM just applied a penalty to the attack and on we went.  Personally I believe this change towards more creative play is more because I'm an older more mature and creative person now than I was at 10 when I started playing AD&D, but by my reckoning the earlier edition did as little to encourage this sort of creative play as the current edition (4e) does to discourage it.  While there is no forbiddence in silence neither is there in speaking.

That said I do have two points that I would make about more codified vs less codified and the changes in this regard over the editions I've played:

A more codified system provides an easier framework for a new player.  Many times I've seen a new player come to the game and be asked by the DM "Ok, its your turn, what do you do?" and be met with blank stares and questions of "What can I do."  Telling the new player "Whatever you want" doesn't empower them to make a quicker or more effective decision.  Whereas "These are your powers, and here's what they do" removes some of the choice paralysis that an open system can incur amongsth the newbies.

Furthermore, how frequently do you find yourself doing these interesting outside-of-the-box things with your Basic/OD&D fighter?  If you're like me occaisonally you'd try something neat but most of the time you didn't bother, you swung your sword and were done with it.  Simple and quick but not interesting. In 4e with a similar investment of effort and creativity you could make a passing attack and hit something move to interpose between the oncoming gnoll and the wizard and make another attack.  Much more interesting.

If simple Fighters are not boring, then why are so many people bored with them?




If you're arguing that simple fighters are boring based off the fact that there are "many" people who claim they are, you'd be committing a Bandwagon Fallacy. Something is not so, simply because any number of people say it is so. The Earth was not flat prior to our discovery otherwise

But that's kind of beside the point. What is boring is subjective.

I love the subject of Economics. I could listen to Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman lecture for hours at a time. Others would be bored to tears.

The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.

It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.

In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game
Learn about Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty Free Market Capitalism is the truest, and best hope for man kind. IMAGE(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/Rumek_Testament/NeoGrognardextracroped.jpg) Visit my blog at: www.theneogrognard.blogspot.com

If simple Fighters are not boring, then why are so many people bored with them?




If you're arguing that simple fighters are boring based off the fact that there are "many" people who claim they are, you'd be committing a Bandwagon Fallacy. Something is not so, simply because any number of people say it is so. The Earth was not flat prior to our discovery otherwise

But that's kind of beside the point. What is boring is subjective.

I love the subject of Economics. I could listen to Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman lecture for hours at a time. Others would be bored to tears.

The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.

It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.

In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game




This, this, for the thousanth time this. This is what has been stated by develepors for months, this is what i believe will happen. We were told WEEKS ago that the fighter being tested will be the BASIC fighter and that more advanced tactical fighter builds will come later.

This is not the only playtest. Test it for what it is, and tell them your looking forward to the power/maneuver options they've promised.

Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

If simple Fighters are not boring, then why are so many people bored with them?




If you're arguing that simple fighters are boring based off the fact that there are "many" people who claim they are, you'd be committing a Bandwagon Fallacy. Something is not so, simply because any number of people say it is so. The Earth was not flat prior to our discovery otherwise

But that's kind of beside the point. What is boring is subjective.

I love the subject of Economics. I could listen to Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman lecture for hours at a time. Others would be bored to tears.

The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.

It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.

In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game




This, this, for the thousanth time this. This is what has been stated by develepors for months, this is what i believe will happen. We were told WEEKS ago that the fighter being tested will be the BASIC fighter and that more advanced tactical fighter builds will come later.

This is not the only playtest. Test it for what it is, and tell them your looking forward to the power/maneuver options they've promised.




Personally, I'd be much more accepting of the simple Fighter who will get his options later if the Wizard and Cleric were in the same boat.

Simple Wizards and Clerics could be just as fun as the simple Fighter, and it'd broaden the base appeal of the game by making it easy to start playing no matter what kind of character you want.

For some reason people don't want to see a simple Wizard or Cleric. I often wonder why, since they argue so vehemently for the Fighter's simplicity.
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.

It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.

In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game




I don't necessarily agree that any class needs to be simple in the core rules.

However even granting the premise that there must be a simple class, why the fighter? Why not the cleric, or the wizard, or Rogue? More importantly if it is important for classes to be simple in the core rules why not make all classes simple in the core rules and then more complex in expansions/supplements/modules.

The one thing that 4e got very right in my perspective was building all classes on the same foundation (and there were some cracks in that foundation, to be sure, but at least they all shared that common starting point and framework).  This for the first time put all the classes on an equal footing, and I laud that decision and lament the move away from it.

Your mistake is thinking that if a 4e fighter can be played as a 3rd edition one then they are not different. You can play a 4ed fighter for damage, but you can play it in a lot of different ways.

Think about marking, stopping enemy's movement, Come and Get It and a bunch of other powers. The 3e fighter simply doesn't have these opportunities. Fighters should get the equivalent of spells in the form of powers or Tome of Battle maneuvers, otherwise they either become basic attack spammers or "DM may I?" characters.


I see a lot of people tallking about fighters being interesting to play because you have to imagine the actions and improvise. As a player I always hated those who did it. Kicking dirt in the eyes of an enemy is nice if you do it once, or twice, but if you do it all the time it quickly gets as boring as spamming basic attacks.
On top of that improvised attacks are always balanced by the DM and I'm against giving too much mechanic rulings in the hands of the DM (and I'm a DM for 50% of the time), because you'll have wild variations.     



Are you saying that a 3.5 fighter had no variation? By the end of it's life cycle, the fighter had WELL over 100 feats to choose. I've seen so many weird fighter builds that I could probably list them for days at this point. Spiked chain gladiator? Check. Whip Master? Check. CRAZY Archer that put ranger to shame? Check. Thrown Weapon specialist? Double check, AND screw that broken POS character lol.

Also remember the Golden Rule of this playtest that people are seeming to forget. Back when they announced how the edition was going to be crafted, they mentioned that the base rule set was going to be there to appeal to the 1st and 2nd ed crowd. It has done just that. They WILL bring in other factors that will appeal to the other crowds. This is not anywhere NEAR the final product.

My two copper.
Personally, I'd be much more accepting of the simple Fighter who will get his options later if the Wizard and Cleric were in the same boat.

Simple Wizards and Clerics could be just as fun as the simple Fighter, and it'd broaden the base appeal of the game by making it easy to start playing no matter what kind of character you want.

For some reason people don't want to see a simple Wizard or Cleric. I often wonder why, since they argue so vehemently for the Fighter's simplicity.



The wizard and Cleric ARE already simple, at least, as simple as their concept/archetype/purpose allow. Not as simple as the fighter, at least on the surface, but hardly complex.

I don't necessarily agree that any class needs to be simple in the core rules.

However even granting the premise that there must be a simple class, why the fighter? Why not the cleric, or the wizard, or Rogue? More importantly if it is important for classes to be simple in the core rules why not make all classes simple in the core rules and then more complex in expansions/supplements/modules.
 



All classes in the core should be represented in their most simple form. That way, supplements can add to those classes what you want, while not forcing me or others to play YOUR fighter. I can play MY fighter, and I can play MY wizard and you can play YOURS in that scenario.

The fighter is the most mundane conceptually, and therefore requires the least ammount of complexity to do what a fighter needs to do. The cleric/rogue/wizard are really not THAT complex in their basic forms, only a tad more so then the figher.
Learn about Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty Free Market Capitalism is the truest, and best hope for man kind. IMAGE(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/Rumek_Testament/NeoGrognardextracroped.jpg) Visit my blog at: www.theneogrognard.blogspot.com
Why is the fighter simple but the wizard complex? It's fine for there to be simple classes for the guy who spends half the time texting or whatever, but what about players who enjoy thinking tactically but would still rather play a character who perseveres through blood and sweat rather than a tower-dwelling namby-pamby?

The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.
In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game


The potential problem with this is what we saw a lot of in 3.x: DMs with no understanding of how the rules work blanket-banning entire splats. If the Warblade is banned, there's no muscly-type class available in 3.5 who's even of middling competence, nor any with more options than "attack" or "rage, then attack". And of course, even allowing the Warblade, there's nothing anywhere in the whole edition that can challenge a core wizard, besides a wizard using that same core class but with access to the even more options that filled countless splatbooks for him.
Surely you can appreciate why many people would prefer not to see this situation mirrored in 5e?
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)

The wizard and Cleric ARE already simple, at least, as simple as their concept/archetype/purpose allow. Not as simple as the fighter, at least on the surface, but hardly complex.

"simple" and "complex" are ultimately subjective terms. Compared to the other classes, cleric and wizard are complex. Compared to a character built in FATAL, the cleric and wizard are simple. But what we're comparing to here isn't some arbitrary outside benchmark. It's the other things in Next, and to a lesser extent to everything else in D&D. The fact of the matter is, there's no reason "I cast a spell" should be any different than "I use an attack". In fact if you look at it that way, it should be far less simple, because "I use an attack" isn't something that would happen in actual medieval combat, instead you might use a parry, a lunge, a feint, etc.a There is no single "attack" option, while magic can (and often has!) easily been conceived as having a simple "evoke" option.

All classes in the core should be represented in their most simple form. That way, supplements can add to those classes what you want, while not forcing me or others to play YOUR fighter. I can play MY fighter, and I can play MY wizard and you can play YOURS in that scenario.

First of all, using this theory, the wizard as currently styled shouldn't be in core at all then. Our core option should be more like the Warlock of 3.5, which was a simpler (and not coincidentally, far less powerful) caster that didn't use vancian magic.

The fighter is the most mundane conceptually, and therefore requires the least ammount of complexity to do what a fighter needs to do. The cleric/rogue/wizard are really not THAT complex in their basic forms, only a tad more so then the figher.


Mundane != simple. It is makes no more sense to simplify everything a fighter can do to "I hit him with my weapon" than it does to simplify everything a wizard can do to "I hit him with my magic".
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.

It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.

In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game




I don't necessarily agree that any class needs to be simple in the core rules.

However even granting the premise that there must be a simple class, why the fighter? Why not the cleric, or the wizard, or Rogue? More importantly if it is important for classes to be simple in the core rules why not make all classes simple in the core rules and then more complex in expansions/supplements/modules.

The one thing that 4e got very right in my perspective was building all classes on the same foundation (and there were some cracks in that foundation, to be sure, but at least they all shared that common starting point and framework).  This for the first time put all the classes on an equal footing, and I laud that decision and lament the move away from it.



Because they aren't targeting the current players of 4e at this point in the production process, they are trying to build a viable mathematical baseline to tempt back players who preferred the earlier editions.  Love it or loathe it, they got a lot of positive feedback from the simplified martial builds in Essentials.  4e players are happy with their complex builds and can continue to play them until there are enough tactical modules to satisfy them. 

4e elements such as at-will magic and themes are already bringing some nice elements from 4e and the return to free-form combat using simple opposed rolls should make combat fun while still being faster than 4e.  The tactical module will be playtested soon enough.  Focus on the maths for now.

So, what, tangibly, do the people that want a more interesting/complex fighter want out of it, given that the core assumption is that combat is not gridded/non-tactical detail?

Why is the fighter simple but the wizard complex? It's fine for there to be simple classes for the guy who spends half the time texting or whatever, but what about players who enjoy thinking tactically but would still rather play a character who perseveres through blood and sweat rather than a tower-dwelling namby-pamby?



If you want more complex charaters, then you get the expansions. If you demand that the core be complex, you then, by extension, demand everyone else play your version of D&D - or simply go without a current and supported system. A simple core with complex expansions gives you the option to play whatever complexity you want. The reverse is not true.

The potential problem with this is what we saw a lot of in 3.x: DMs with no understanding of how the rules work blanket-banning entire splats.



That's no different then any edition. Ultimately it comes down to the player to DM relationship. If he is running a game that is unsatisfactory to you, you are not forced to play. If he has "no understanding of how the rules work" then it wont matter what he allows and what he doesn't.

If the Warblade is banned, there's no muscly-type class available in 3.5 who's even of middling competence, nor any with more options than "attack" or "rage, then attack". And of course, even allowing the Warblade, there's nothing anywhere in the whole edition that can challenge a core wizard, besides a wizard using that same core class but with access to the even more options that filled countless splatbooks for him.
Surely you can appreciate why many people would prefer not to see this situation mirrored in 5e? 



Once again, that's something every group works out for themselves. What is allowed and what isn't. I'm sure you can appreciate why many people do not wish to be forced into playing the game in only one way.

"simple" and "complex" are ultimately subjective terms. Compared to the other classes, cleric and wizard are complex. Compared to a character built in FATAL, the cleric and wizard are simple. But what we're comparing to here isn't some arbitrary outside benchmark. It's the other things in Next, and to a lesser extent to everything else in D&D. The fact of the matter is, there's no reason "I cast a spell" should be any different than "I use an attack". In fact if you look at it that way, it should be far less simple, because "I use an attack" isn't something that would happen in actual medieval combat, instead you might use a parry, a lunge, a feint, etc.a There is no single "attack" option, while magic can (and often has!) easily been conceived as having a simple "evoke" option.



The existance of subjectivity does not invalidate a point in and of itself, nor is it an excuse to ignore an argument. I think it's odd that you would open your statment with this, considering your following points.

I disagree with your reasoning. Attacking is swinging a sword, even with skill, it can be more complex then that in small measures. Casting a spell requires (by the system shown in the packet, and almost all of D&D history) revolves around a caster memorizing a spell, mixing components and dealing with other worldly forces. To suggest that the fighters job is more complex then the magic user's would be disengenuous.

First of all, using this theory, the wizard as currently styled shouldn't be in core at all then. Our core option should be more like the Warlock of 3.5, which was a simpler (and not coincidentally, far less powerful) caster that didn't use vancian magic.



I thought "simple" and "complex" were wholey subjective, and we couldn't use such terms to argue "arbitrary benchmarks."

If we are to throw out all subjective arguments or observations, then your statment here is meaningless. However, since I don't consider subjective the same thing as invalid, I would not hold on to that reasoning.

I would not agree whatsover that the 5e wizard presented is too complex, or complex at all, or more complex then the 3.5 warlock.

Mundane != simple. It is makes no more sense to simplify everything a fighter can do to "I hit him with my weapon" than it does to simplify everything a wizard can do to "I hit him with my magic".



Whatever technique the fighter uses, whatever stance and however he uses his weapon the goal, and possible end result is the same. Cause straight damage to the monster.

Spells do not work that way. They do not all serve the same goal or work towards the same possible end result. Therefore, magic use, by its nature, requires the consideration of far more variables then weapon/melee combat.

As such, the wizard is inherintly (even in it's most simple form) more complex then the fighter.


Ultimately, it comes down to what you think 5e should be.

If you think that 5e should allow for multiple game styles, and allow groups to tailor the game to how they want, then you want a simple core that can (and will) be expanded upon. In this scenario (I repeat) both you and I get a game we can enjoy.

If you think that 5e should allow fewer or only one style of play, then you want a complex hard and fast core where there is a mandatory minimum of complexity. In this scenario, you may get a game you want - but I will not.

I don't see any reason (fiscally or otherwise) that we should take the second path. Why not make a game that everyone (with a little modding, or a few supplements) can enjoy? WotC makes more money that way. I have more fun that way, and you get your fun too.
Learn about Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty Free Market Capitalism is the truest, and best hope for man kind. IMAGE(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/Rumek_Testament/NeoGrognardextracroped.jpg) Visit my blog at: www.theneogrognard.blogspot.com
So, what, tangibly, do the people that want a more interesting/complex fighter want out of it, given that the core assumption is that combat is not gridded/non-tactical detail?



You get the simple fighter in core. With supplements you can take that fighter to whatever complexity you want.
Learn about Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty Free Market Capitalism is the truest, and best hope for man kind. IMAGE(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/Rumek_Testament/NeoGrognardextracroped.jpg) Visit my blog at: www.theneogrognard.blogspot.com