Definately liked it

I've been playing since college (1979) and running dungeons since 1980.  I can safely say the WotC has done a great job on this so far.  Simple, abstract combat and fairly easy rules allow my players and myself to role play without the need for "rules lawyers" that the AD&D PH and DMG encouraged.

Can't wait for the later installments to give us the systems for character generation and some of the in-game rationale behind these and other classes and races.

Plays much like AD&D.  Congrats and good job, guys.
I'm curious what exactly ran much like AD&D. We were able to spot the little bits of 4th and a good amount from 3.5, but the rest we couldn't figure out what was D&D or AD&D. I never played either of those.
I'm curious what exactly ran much like AD&D. We were able to spot the little bits of 4th and a good amount from 3.5, but the rest we couldn't figure out what was D&D or AD&D. I never played either of those.


The concept behind just what the regular classes were, if you ignored the background and themes, could be one.  

In addition, relegating checks to ability checks primarily is another trait of AD&D (which had nonweapon proficiencies, but those were basically modifications on the ability checks you'd be doing otherwise).

Lastly, I have a sense that the combat being much more abstract atm regarding action economy is more AD&D in nature than 3.5 and 4e.  You have just a move and an action as opposed to a Standard + Move vs. Full Round, or Standard+Minor+Move with combination sorta thing.
I'm curious what exactly ran much like AD&D. We were able to spot the little bits of 4th and a good amount from 3.5, but the rest we couldn't figure out what was D&D or AD&D. I never played either of those.



The simplified stats for monsters off the top of my head. There is a lot of modified 3.5 in there, but the Caves of Chaos could easily be mistaken for its predecessor in The Keep on the Borderlands module.  The lack of a numerical balancing system for combat is also from AD&D/D&D. DMs had to make judgement calls when writing adventures. 

I think there is a lot more 3.5 with a D&D/AD&D feel to this than a lot of actual rules from those systems.  
I'm curious what exactly ran much like AD&D. We were able to spot the little bits of 4th and a good amount from 3.5, but the rest we couldn't figure out what was D&D or AD&D. I never played either of those.


The concept behind just what the regular classes were, if you ignored the background and themes, could be one.  

In addition, relegating checks to ability checks primarily is another trait of AD&D (which had nonweapon proficiencies, but those were basically modifications on the ability checks you'd be doing otherwise).

Lastly, I have a sense that the combat being much more abstract atm regarding action economy is more AD&D in nature than 3.5 and 4e.  You have just a move and an action as opposed to a Standard + Move vs. Full Round, or Standard+Minor+Move with combination sorta thing.



I didn't think of that, but I agree. People complaining about Fighters being boring don't seem to remember what Fighters were like in AD&D. Kits and multiclassing gave you more options in 2e, but Fighters in AD&D were always about hitting things really hard.
Also I'm glad they didn't go all the way back to the D&D/AD&D reverse AC system. That was needlessly complicated.
I didn't think of that, but I agree. People complaining about Fighters being boring don't seem to remember what Fighters were like in AD&D. Kits and multiclassing gave you more options in 2e, but Fighters in AD&D were always about hitting things really hard.


Sure, but I don't think that going back to that style of fighter is a great idea when it comes to making a compelling class to play.

Many have suggested to use Improvise as a means of making Fighters do more than hit things, some claiming that this is what people did back then by usign their imaginations to come up with interesting ways to make the fighter do stuff.  While I agree with that sentiment, it's sort of offset by the fact that classes like Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric have access to that PLUS other rules that give them some more mechanical variance/crunch over the fighter.

I really liked the spirit of the Fighter/Weaponmaster in 4e from the standpoint of him incorperating a wide range of tricks/manuevers as part of his attacks, and honestly, if there were a flexible system in place to include improvisation as part of an attack roll, with some mechanical framing of how it would be done, I could see the Fighter in this edition being one that not only retains the direct simplicity of the older editions, while enabling a lot of clever, lateral thinking from players.
Also I'm glad they didn't go all the way back to the D&D/AD&D reverse AC system. That was needlessly complicated.


The main mechanical AD&D complaints I had were having to deal with sometimes wanting to roll low, and sometimes wanting to roll high, and the notion of having a crit success/fail being possible as part of an ability/nonweapon proficiency check.

The fact that 3e/4e make it clear that crit succcess/fails really can't occur in skill checks was such a great, subtle way to address that  issue.
I didn't think of that, but I agree. People complaining about Fighters being boring don't seem to remember what Fighters were like in AD&D. Kits and multiclassing gave you more options in 2e, but Fighters in AD&D were always about hitting things really hard.


Sure, but I don't think that going back to that style of fighter is a great idea when it comes to making a compelling class to play.

Many have suggested to use Improvise as a means of making Fighters do more than hit things, some claiming that this is what people did back then by usign their imaginations to come up with interesting ways to make the fighter do stuff.  While I agree with that sentiment, it's sort of offset by the fact that classes like Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric have access to that PLUS other rules that give them some more mechanical variance/crunch over the fighter.

I really liked the spirit of the Fighter/Weaponmaster in 4e from the standpoint of him incorperating a wide range of tricks/manuevers as part of his attacks, and honestly, if there were a flexible system in place to include improvisation as part of an attack roll, with some mechanical framing of how it would be done, I could see the Fighter in this edition being one that not only retains the direct simplicity of the older editions, while enabling a lot of clever, lateral thinking from players.



I think this points out one of the strengths I see so far in this system. I could easily drop in feats from 3.5 or M&M or whatever d20 system to spice up the fighter. Some of the standard combat options from those systems would easily port over as well such as all out attack, aim, power attack, etc.

I think the advantage/disadvantage system could be the way to provide a bonus for clever thinking as a fighter. My players tend to do this type of gaming anyway so I'm used to coming up with stuff on the fly. 
I have a small input to tpamwow's last paragraph. I think they should make advantage/disadvantage and great advantage/major disadvantage. Just my opinion.

I think this points out one of the strengths I see so far in this system. I could easily drop in feats from 3.5 or M&M or whatever d20 system to spice up the fighter. Some of the standard combat options from those systems would easily port over as well such as all out attack, aim, power attack, etc.

I think the advantage/disadvantage system could be the way to provide a bonus for clever thinking as a fighter. My players tend to do this type of gaming anyway so I'm used to coming up with stuff on the fly. 

Sure, but advantage/disadvantage is a pretty heavy weighted system, and granting it too frequently will probably result in characters hitting too often (because on the averages standpoint, it's basically a +5 to the roll overall).  On top of that, it feels a mechanically soft solution for me, personally.

Feats are an option, though I would say it would be better if this was done through a Theme approach, or perhaps having Schemes for the Fighter like they seem to have for the Rogue, where you gain access to manuevers that can be incorporated into an attack roll.

I sort of see a solution like this, as something under a class of actions I'd call "Improvisational Attacks":

Toppling Strike: Declare that you will be attacking your target with the intent to knock them prone. If your attack hits, have a STR vs STR contest with the target.  If successful, you knock your target prone.  Non-Fighters can attempt to do this, but will be at disadvantage for both the attack and the check.

Something like that, but again, this is a loose idea off the top of my head, and not at all sussed out.

Many have suggested to use Improvise as a means of making Fighters do more than hit things, some claiming that this is what people did back then by usign their imaginations to come up with interesting ways to make the fighter do stuff.  While I agree with that sentiment, it's sort of offset by the fact that classes like Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric have access to that PLUS other rules that give them some more mechanical variance/crunch over the fighter.



Okay, but someone is (from my perspective) going to play a fighter because they want to be a big tough guy that is, well, big and tough. Whatever they do with his bigness and toughness is their own decision. The other classes are being played because someone wants to be sneaky, or magicky, or religious. The rogue has his sneakiness, but not the physicality a fighter has, so he gets sneak attack to compensate for the physical feats a fighter can pull off. A wizard has his magic, which he can improvise with. Congratulations if that improvisation bites you in the arse. Messing with magic, by nature volatile, can have disastrous results if misused. Same applies for clerics, although they are notorious for staying pretty predictable minus the occasional call to his deity. So all in all, a fighter should get minimal abilities because he has the body which can pull of feats no wizard, cleric, or even rogue should be able to do. Excepting a rogue in cases of acrobatics.
The fighter has access to some abilities which showcase his prowress in battle, but nothing that equates his steel to a burst of energy from the Weave that has enough power to start a fire from thin air. No, the fighter rather is a fighting man. An exceptional soldier, who can and hopefully will, use his experience and ingeniuity to overcome any disadvantages he has from not being born with dragons blood in his veins, or the favor of a deity.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!

Many have suggested to use Improvise as a means of making Fighters do more than hit things, some claiming that this is what people did back then by usign their imaginations to come up with interesting ways to make the fighter do stuff.  While I agree with that sentiment, it's sort of offset by the fact that classes like Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric have access to that PLUS other rules that give them some more mechanical variance/crunch over the fighter.



Okay, but someone is (from my perspective) going to play a fighter because they want to be a big tough guy that is, well, big and tough. Whatever they do with his bigness and toughness is their own decision. The other classes are being played because someone wants to be sneaky, or magicky, or religious. The rogue has his sneakiness, but not the physicality a fighter has, so he gets sneak attack to compensate for the physical feats a fighter can pull off. A wizard has his magic, which he can improvise with. Congratulations if that improvisation bites you in the arse. Messing with magic, by nature volatile, can have disastrous results if misused. Same applies for clerics, although they are notorious for staying pretty predictable minus the occasional call to his deity. So all in all, a fighter should get minimal abilities because he has the body which can pull of feats no wizard, cleric, or even rogue should be able to do. Excepting a rogue in cases of acrobatics.
The fighter has access to some abilities which showcase his prowress in battle, but nothing that equates his steel to a burst of energy from the Weave that has enough power to start a fire from thin air. No, the fighter rather is a fighting man. An exceptional soldier, who can and hopefully will, use his experience and ingeniuity to overcome any disadvantages he has from not being born with dragons blood in his veins, or the favor of a deity.



That's an interesting argument for keeping things simple with fighters. I would probably want to give them some kind of bonus to HP/damage to accentuate this. But thats just a thought. Fighters are pretty tough at lower levels so far. 

I like the Improvisational attack idea as well, but I think just porting over stuff like power attack, and all out attack would serve the same purpose. A fighters natural strength would give them an advantage over another class using the same options.

No, the fighter rather is a fighting man. An exceptional soldier, who can and hopefully will, use his experience and ingeniuity to overcome any disadvantages he has from not being born with dragons blood in his veins, or the favor of a deity.

Most of what you have said here really doesn't mean much to me, unfortunately.  I can understand what you are trying to say here, but I'll try rewording my position.

A fighter is really good at hitting things with his weapon, and many say that if you want to do more than that, than improvise to do things like trip people, but that is left fully up to the imagination of both the player and the DM.

Wizards are good at casting spells, and they can improvise as well, which is left to the player and DM's imaginations...but those spells have a range of varied, mechanically _guaranteed_ things that they can do aside from damage or otherwise, giving them a rather striking range of options of things they could do from an improvisational angle, which only compounds as they go on.

So yes, the Fighter is a fighting man, but that doesn't mean that the rules can't expressly outline a framework for playing a range of different KINDS of fighters, such as some of the archtypes from prevous games, each with their own things they could do in addition to just hitting things:

Brawlers/Gladiator style fighters who use one handed weapons, and have a free hand to grab onto enemies in order to get better control of the matter, or are more willing to intentionally trip people to get a showy advantage.

Shield Fighters who can use attacks with the shields to stagger opponents.

Fencing/Dextrous Melee fighters, more adept at nimble parries, and exacting hits at just the right spots.

Unarmed Fighters, Archers (but not Rangers exactly), Specialists of particular types of weapons...

ALL of these are fighting men, but that doesn't mean that they JUST are good at hitting things with their weapons - and I think that having rules that bolster lateral thinking in the players in what can be done is only a good thing, while also allowing for the simple fighting man to be an option. 

I like the Improvisational attack idea as well, but I think just porting over stuff like power attack, and all out attack would serve the same purpose. A fighters natural strength would give them an advantage over another class using the same options.



Perhaps, but I'm not thinking pure strength here - I'm thinking someone who's seasoned in using weapons to make exacting attacks that is manifested in ways other than just having an average better chance at hitting an enemey than the other guy, and probably doing more damage per attack roll.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a simple fighter at all.  I just don't think that it should be the only option (and I expect that it won't be by launch), and I also don't think that just throwing feats at the problem really resolves what I'm talking about.
and possible options between gaining a bonus for your health/damage/accuracy and gaining a particular maneuver. Basically saying you spent the last level training your body specifically or training a new talent. Or perhaps not maneuvers, but gaining a bonus to improv checks and other similar things.

The toppling strike looks like a trip attempt rule, with a bonus to fighters. I like that idea, and if it needs to be made into a power for simplicity of use or reference that's fine and reasonable.   
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
and possible options between gaining a bonus for your health/damage/accuracy and gaining a particular maneuver. Basically saying you spent the last level training your body specifically or training a new talent. Or perhaps not maneuvers, but gaining a bonus to improv checks and other similar things.

The toppling strike looks like a trip attempt rule, with a bonus to fighters. I like that idea, and if it needs to be made into a power for simplicity of use or reference that's fine and reasonable.   

Exactly.  Of course, there needs to be a balance between simplicity and effectiveness, but this is really all that I'm thinking that is needed to sort of bridge the gap, and your interpretation of Toppling Strike is the exact intent - it's a trip attempt as part of an attack (since just tripping as an improvise would simply take up the one action you have for a turn).

Granted, I know that Fighters automatically get a second action twice per day at second level, but even then I think that some added layer of having techniques either available, or unfold over time, could really add a layer of depth that players could choose to use with the fighter...or just keep him/her as they normally are, since the fighter, as is, is a functional character class from what I see.

** EDIT **

I guess another way to look at is the idea of the Generalist vs. Specialist Wizard, or the kit options from AD&D for Fighters.  Those were ways of getting variations on the theme of a fighter.  4e did a bit of that without having specific archetypes/kits, and I think a similar thing could be done in 5e..this is mostly speculation/brainstorming for fun in either case.

and possible options between gaining a bonus for your health/damage/accuracy and gaining a particular maneuver. Basically saying you spent the last level training your body specifically or training a new talent. Or perhaps not maneuvers, but gaining a bonus to improv checks and other similar things.

The toppling strike looks like a trip attempt rule, with a bonus to fighters. I like that idea, and if it needs to be made into a power for simplicity of use or reference that's fine and reasonable.   

Exactly.  Of course, there needs to be a balance between simplicity and effectiveness, but this is really all that I'm thinking that is needed to sort of bridge the gap, and your interpretation of Toppling Strike is the exact intent - it's a trip attempt as part of an attack (since just tripping as an improvise would simply take up the one action you have for a turn).

Granted, I know that Fighters automatically get a second action twice per day at second level, but even then I think that some added layer of having techniques either available, or unfold over time, could really add a layer of depth that players could choose to use with the fighter...or just keep him/her as they normally are, since the fighter, as is, is a functional character class from what I see.

** EDIT **

I guess another way to look at is the idea of the Generalist vs. Specialist Wizard, or the kit options from AD&D for Fighters.  Those were ways of getting variations on the theme of a fighter.  4e did a bit of that without having specific archetypes/kits, and I think a similar thing could be done in 5e..this is mostly speculation/brainstorming for fun in either case.




Agreed. If fighters are this simple when the final product rolls out, there will be some unhappy campers. 



Agreed. If fighters are this simple when the final product rolls out, there will be some unhappy campers. 



Oh, definitely.  But fortuantely, there is some good potential for some fun stuff here, from what I can see already with just combining backgrounds and themes.  Already, a Fighter with Soldier + Slayer would play a bit differently tactically than a Fighter with Knight + Guardian, or Commoner + Magic User, or otherwise.  I'm just thinking of that one other, mechanically focused, layer that can add that range of options that some players would really go for...and I think the best route is expanding on improvisation in attacks.


Agreed. If fighters are this simple when the final product rolls out, there will be some unhappy campers. 



Oh, definitely.  But fortuantely, there is some good potential for some fun stuff here, from what I can see already with just combining backgrounds and themes.  Already, a Fighter with Soldier + Slayer would play a bit differently tactically than a Fighter with Knight + Guardian, or Commoner + Magic User, or otherwise.  I'm just thinking of that one other, mechanically focused, layer that can add that range of options that some players would really go for...and I think the best route is expanding on improvisation in attacks.


good to see we are all in agreement! improvisation attacks make sense, saying that every character can trip, but a fighter knows how to add a little extra oomph in just the right spot. good thoughts! 
Adding something similar to the rogue's scheme is a nice way to define the fighter, bestowing certain benefits. Maybe take a hint from the ranger(3.5) paths? Using options avaliable to everyone via feats, but automatically gained through your chosen style.   

You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!