Does anyone actually like the Fighter?

Not an attempt to start a flame war, just curious.

Personally, I really like the fighter because it feels like D&D to me (not opposed to 4E as I both run and play it).  There's a certain lack of complex rules that appeals to me.  I don't need a half dozen "powers" that equate to "I hit it with my sword".  I wonder if part of it may be that I come from red box D&D days and other games (Game of Thrones RPG, One Roll Engine) where fighter types hit things and that's pretty much it?  Is it because I'm not married to having to have a card that says I can throw sand in an opponent's eyes?  Or one that says I can push my opponent back a few feet?

I guess I'm wondering if players of more "old school" types of games are more on board with the fighter presented so far.
I LOVE the fighter. He is what I love about the fighter class - base attacking awesomeness.
Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I DMed a session, but from what I've seen I like where things stand as of right now.  I'm encouraged that a lot of customization can come from theme choices (slayer, defender, etc...). I could even see class specific themes in the future for those who want to relegate certain abilities to only one class though I'd like to avoid that.

In any case, I think the issue is that people tend not to completely buy into the improvizational nature of the rules as they stand right now.  In my session, I had a fighter do a barrel roll over a table while swinging his axe before bull rushing a goblin into his companions.  Without some examples of what you can do (and rules for these things aren't really necessary in my opinion) I think a lot of people look at it like you can only do a basic attack every round.  That's not entirely true.

My players tend to like the simple sword-swinger. 
I DMed a session, but from what I've seen I like where things stand as of right now.  I'm encouraged that a lot of customization can come from theme choices (slayer, defender, etc...). I could even see class specific themes in the future for those who want to relegate certain abilities to only one class though I'd like to avoid that.

In any case, I think the issue is that people tend not to completely buy into the improvizational nature of the rules as they stand right now.  In my session, I had a fighter do a barrel roll over a table while swinging his axe before bull rushing a goblin into his companions.  Without some examples of what you can do (and rules for these things aren't really necessary in my opinion) I think a lot of people look at it like you can only do a basic attack every round.  That's not entirely true.

My players tend to like the simple sword-swinger. 



I must spend too much time on Facebook since I looked for the "like" button

I think there's a different mentality that comes from having all the options spelled out for you, both in terms of playing and DMing.  I'm the sort of DM who, in a 4E game, would let players try things like throwing sand in the opponent's eyes (Basic Ranged attack vs. Ref = Hit = dazed, save ends) while other DMs would say "what power is that".

Having examples are an excellent idea to get people thinking outside the relatively narrow box they perceive.


I must spend too much time on Facebook since I looked for the "like" button

I think there's a different mentality that comes from having all the options spelled out for you, both in terms of playing and DMing.  I'm the sort of DM who, in a 4E game, would let players try things like throwing sand in the opponent's eyes (Basic Ranged attack vs. Ref = Hit = dazed, save ends) while other DMs would say "what power is that".

Having examples are an excellent idea to get people thinking outside the relatively narrow box they perceive.



Agreed.  I've seen a lot of players and DMs become paralyzed with the need to have a power for everything.  This is unfortunate, and despite playing 4e regularly it's one of the things that has turned me off from it as a system (with combat length being the biggest skeleton in that particular closet).  Although improv is possible in 4e I always found it to be a little more difficult in general... which is why tying everything directly to stats is a huge improvement in my mind.
Not an attempt to start a flame war, just curious.

Personally, I really like the fighter because it feels like D&D to me (not opposed to 4E as I both run and play it).  There's a certain lack of complex rules that appeals to me.  I don't need a half dozen "powers" that equate to "I hit it with my sword".  I wonder if part of it may be that I come from red box D&D days and other games (Game of Thrones RPG, One Roll Engine) where fighter types hit things and that's pretty much it?  Is it because I'm not married to having to have a card that says I can throw sand in an opponent's eyes?  Or one that says I can push my opponent back a few feet?

I guess I'm wondering if players of more "old school" types of games are more on board with the fighter presented so far.



I played the fighter last night and I enjoyed the experience. Certainly there are times where I want to play a class more complex, but sometimes I want to play one that is not. I suspect there will be some more "powers" or "kits" for folks who want more diversity. 
So far we have really liked the new Fighter as presented.  I'm looking forward to seeing how it levels to see if we could make it complex down the road but at its core I really want the Fighter to be straightforward. 

Sure there is a time and a place for super complex character builds and I hope Fighter has that option in the end like the other classes but I'm pretty pleased with this for first round. 

Fingers are still crossed that I will actually be able to make a wall of metal that actually reaches combat before the Wizard kills the mobs though.
I'm kind of feeling disappointed about the Fighter at the moment. Yeah, it's back to basics and all, and this is only the beginning, but the Fighter seems to be really lagging behind the other classes. I'm personally a fan of fighters that customize what they do and it's not just 'I swing my sowrd at the monster.' Fighters can be done extremely right and be awesome members of the party, but only if you can put in a bit of thought and have some resources to work off of.
Well as presented yes the fighter is a bit boring.

However I did a quick number crunch and unless the rogue is getting SA every round, he should be out damaging the rogue at least. 
I have always loved fighters (except in 4E) and this fighter does not dissapoint.  He already has more options than the first fighter, and I agree that the improvisation rule will only help.  I think he is well done, and he easily outdamage the other classes over the course of a day.
Which  only works if the rest of the party decides to keep going after their dailies are gone.

That said the slayer's high damage special abilities are probably sufficient to keep them in the game for now, but as level increases they'll need more tricks, however that's low levels for you. It's a good slayer.

I just don't much care for slayers, I find them dull. 
Well, the design of the game is such that wizards and clerics shouldn't be blasting their best spells for every combat.  Besides, there are times resting isn't an option, which is when a fighter can shine.
Making a class wait for everyone else to suck in order to be awesome is bad design. Furthermore it means you aren't really awesome, you're just sucking less than the other people are right now.

That said they seem to be trying to work in the kind of combat tricks and abilities that would keep the slayer competitive at higher levels, just doing so more subltly than in 4e so as not to offend the "OMG FIGHTERS CAN'T HAVE COOL TOYS!" crowd. 
Fighter looks a little bland for me personally but I know some players who would be ok playing him and he's probably a good pick for rookies who want something simple. Numbers wise he's pretty bad-ass so I don't think that's an issue.

Personally I'm looking forward to what they do with later, more complicated versions of the fighter or other martial classes and with other themes. Hypothetically if you took the fighter in the pregen and swapped out a passive bonus or two for an additional type of at-will ability or daily ability, you'd have something a little complicated and interesting but around the same power level. 

For now though this simple fighter looks like he'd be ok for some people but might not be my first choice as a player. 
I don't think it's a bad start for the fighter. I do hope it gets a little more complex down the road, but I don't need a lot of specific powers to make my fighter feel awesome (maybe a few general ones, though).

What I would like to see is how the other ability scores could come into play. I would love to see intelligence, charisma, wisdom and dexterity come into play in ways that benefit fighters in a class specific mechanical way so that each fighter could be built with a different style and feel than the other fighters. Basically, I want my tactical fighter to function differently from my brute fighter, my swashbuckling fighter or my charismatic leader fighter.

On paper, the fighter looks pretty sweet to me.  I am assuming that Weapon Focus was chosen from a menu of special abilities, for which, those more interested in combat tricks would be able to choose something different.
I am liking the fighter so far. Cleave and the extra two actionssee may seem to really emphasize the slayer aspect. Looking fowrd to seeing how a dual wield fighter works. It's also nice not to feel like my fighter's distinctive and cool fighting abilities don't end after I have used my encounter and daily powers, and like that fighters once again are the damage dealers instead of literal meat shield protecting strikers and controllers. 
Making a class wait for everyone else to suck in order to be awesome is bad design. Furthermore it means you aren't really awesome, you're just sucking less than the other people are right now.

That said they seem to be trying to work in the kind of combat tricks and abilities that would keep the slayer competitive at higher levels, just doing so more subltly than in 4e so as not to offend the "OMG FIGHTERS CAN'T HAVE COOL TOYS!" crowd. 



Where does the fighter suck though?  He seems to be the biggest powerhouse in the playtest from my expereince.  If you are refering to past editions.  In 3e-3.5 he may have fell behind the wizard eventually but he never sucked, and I never really saw it at all in 1-2e.  Magic resistance and saves were much harsher back then, the real threat killers were the fighters frequently killing many boss types in a single round of repeated attack glory.

There's a thread in the player test section compiling ideas that "could" make the fighter less bland to some players, while trying to keep the class simple enough - just adding a "little something" that could make it more exciting to play for some players. It would be interesting to have the opinions of those who like the current fighter on these ideas : what would be apropriate and not too much contradictory with the "straihtforward" fighter ideal ?
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
I like the options given by improvisational attacks.  I feel as though multiple attacks per round would help balance if it allowed multiple types of attacks per round like the current fighter surge, perhaps.  Aside from that, trip, grapple, disarm; these all gave the fighter more options while allowing you to be a straightforward fighters; they were options, but you were still, at core, a killing machine.
 
I like the options given by improvisational attacks.  I feel as though multiple attacks per round would help balance if it allowed multiple types of attacks per round like the current fighter surge, perhaps.  Aside from that, trip, grapple, disarm; these all gave the fighter more options while allowing you to be a straightforward fighters; they were options, but you were still, at core, a killing machine.
 



Oh, you've opened a can of worms now. The number-crunching crowd will be here soon with math that supposedly proves how inferior multiple attacks are.
Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I didn't say multiple attacks, I said multiple types of attacks per round.  The ability to knock somebody over and then attack them or the ability to double move and still get an attack in like the fighter suge would be excellant.  Imagine if at, say 11th level, fighter surge became either constant or at will with a cool-down.
I didn't say multiple attacks, I said multiple types of attacks per round.  The ability to knock somebody over and then attack them or the ability to double move and still get an attack in like the fighter suge would be excellant.  Imagine if at, say 11th level, fighter surge became either constant or at will with a cool-down.



Ah, yes. I said in another thread somewhere around here that I' d be good with fighters getting access to status effects that they can apply to attacks on the fly. So at level 1-4, you just get a basic attack. At level 5, you choose to learn how to push or pull as part of your normal attacks. At level 8, trip or disarm. And so forth. Furthermore, certain classes of weapons could provide a bonus to using the appropriate maneuver - Polearms get a +1 to hit if you know trip, while clubs/maces/hammers could get bonuses to dazing attacks.


Edit, crossposting some of these thoughts to my blog.
Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I didn't say the fighter sucked I said that designing it so that they only get to be amazing when the other classes run out of  juice is bad.

This slayer isn't designed like that. It's subtle but it'll be able to keep up for now, the surge, cleave, and such keep them on fairly solid footing.

My objection is to the idea that it's ok to balance a class's performance against what happens when other classes run out of juice/are otherwise nerfed, it's not. 
I didn't say the fighter sucked I said that designing it so that they only get to be amazing when the other classes run out of  juice is bad.

This slayer isn't designed like that. It's subtle but it'll be able to keep up for now, the surge, cleave, and such keep them on fairly solid footing.

My objection is to the idea that it's ok to balance a class's performance against what happens when other classes run out of juice/are otherwise nerfed, it's not. 



It kind of depend on how the out of juice thing is implemented.  In many editions wha it meant was a spellcaster would usually have a round or 2 of awesome where the fighter would be a consistent strong preformer.  In a 4 round fight 2 rounds of awesome with 2 rounds of suckking basically balances with 4 rounds of strong performance.  The strong performance might actually be more useful overall it just doesn't have as many oh awesome moments.  I would normally say I don't think anyone is sugeting that the fighter should suck and the only time he does not suck is when the mage is out of juice and so he sucks more, but I've been on these boards too long and there are people who do suggest that.  So I'll just say there is nothing wrong IMO with one class having spiky performance and another class having consistent performance as long as the overall performance is in the same general area.  
I didn't say the fighter sucked I said that designing it so that they only get to be amazing when the other classes run out of  juice is bad.

This slayer isn't designed like that. It's subtle but it'll be able to keep up for now, the surge, cleave, and such keep them on fairly solid footing.

My objection is to the idea that it's ok to balance a class's performance against what happens when other classes run out of juice/are otherwise nerfed, it's not. 



I think the idea is that the Fighter is consistant. Slow and steady vs Fast and Bursty. A fighter can deal the same damage for hours, a wizard can do alow in seconds in seconds but sacrifices the consistancey a fighter has for moments of excellence.

 
So far, yes I like the class a lot, all of them
I think it has a solid foundation. Hopefully it gets better once they start adding in the rest of the Fighter's options.
I liked the way the fighter played.

I think the need for "complex" fighters comes from the play expectations people have developed.  When character death is never really an option and killing things is the best way to get XP, combat becomes the focus in its own right, and people understandably want interesting options to keep yet another meaningless fight feeling "fresh".

If combat was the last resort that it should be (IMO, sure) Fighters would be thankful for their reliable damage and would thank whatever pagan deities that they had a quadratic wizard at thier backs.

As I've said elsewhere, I think this is also exascerbated by the fact that the game doesn't really change as you level.  Level 20 plays the same as level 1, you're just fighting bigger monsters in bigger places.  I think if there was something like the followers and stronghold-building options of earlier editions (or, you know, something), people would look beyond the combat and see the bigger picture (more often, at least).

I suspect that might help.  Honestly, adventuring has felt like an XP treadmill as of late.  Maybe 5e will address these things.
YEah, for example I'd like to try switching the themes around a bit.

See what happens when we swap the fighter's slayer theme for the cleric's gaudian, or maybe the rogue grabs mystic?

Also I don't mind if the fighter is consistent, vs the wizard's spiky, I just want the fighter's consistent to take into account the wizard's spikes not just be compared to the wizard's cantrips. Which i think this fighter does, so far.
I thought the fighter was simple, yet still carried depth.  This depth may have been imparted due to rule changes like prone, shifting, etc.  But, I loved playtesting the fighter.  Another reason may be the speed of the rounds.  You don't need a lot of choices if your turn is going to come around in 4-5 minutes as opposed to 20 minutes.
4 of the six playtesters in my game last night wanted to be the fighter. As I was only allowing two, the dice had to be rolled and the others got stuck with the rogue and the cleric of moradin.

The rogue went decidedly "rogueish" with his playstyle after being given the character, the other player played the cleric just like a fighter, but in our other games he also has

- been a 4e sorcerer who played like a fighter
- Been a 2e mage who played like a fighter (and died)
- Been a 2e rogue who played like a fighter (and died)
- Been a 4e weaponmaster who got option-lock during his turn and retconned to an essentials fighter

so, yeah, the fighter has a lot of fans.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I don't care for the fighter at all. He's boring. I've always loved playing the strong fighter types but always found their mechanics lacking (particularly in 3.5, where I felt they were massively outshined at their own schtick by other classes who could also do a ton of other things; 3.5 fighters also had practically no out-of-combat options). 4e fighters were the first that actually felt like the fighter I always wanted to play. He could kick ass, he could protect his teammates, with backgrounds he could nab some less-boring skills...

The 5e fighter seems to offer little to interest me and in my mind is a return to the bad old days (which I know a lot of you think of as the good old days... to each their own).

Now don't get me wrong - I actually think that, in a way, powers were an actual problem in 4e. They caused otherwise intelligent people to always think inside the box (i.e., what is written on their character sheet on those little power cards). As much as 4e was designed for players to be able to do cool, outside the box things, many people played by the cards (creating a false impression among some that the game played like WoW). Putting the content on DMG page 42 in the DMG was a huge blunder on the part of the original 4e design team.

However, all 5e has done is take the cards away from the fighter and rogue and left them on the wizard and cleric (though they did try to obfuscate that fact by making the spells solid blocks of text that make them much less convenient to use at the table). So the wizard and cleric get kewl powerz (i.e., spells), IN ADDITION TO BEING ABLE TO IMPROVISE ACTIONS, while the fighter and the rogue get nothing but to be able to improvise actions.

There has to be some way to give the fighter and rogue fun options to use in combat so their experience isn't either stale "I swing at it again" or a constant scramble to think of some new thing to do (which isn't even always possible in some situations) while at the same time not encourage an "all cards all the time" approach at many gaming tables.
I don't care for the fighter at all. He's boring. I've always loved playing the strong fighter types but always found their mechanics lacking (particularly in 3.5, where I felt they were massively outshined at their own schtick by other classes who could also do a ton of other things; 3.5 fighters also had practically no out-of-combat options). 4e fighters were the first that actually felt like the fighter I always wanted to play. He could kick ass, he could protect his teammates, with backgrounds he could nab some less-boring skills...

The 5e fighter seems to offer little to interest me and in my mind is a return to the bad old days (which I know a lot of you think of as the good old days... to each their own).

Now don't get me wrong - I actually think that, in a way, powers were an actual problem in 4e. They caused otherwise intelligent people to always think inside the box (i.e., what is written on their character sheet on those little power cards). As much as 4e was designed for players to be able to do cool, outside the box things, many people played by the cards (creating a false impression among some that the game played like WoW). Putting the content on DMG page 42 in the DMG was a huge blunder on the part of the original 4e design team.

However, all 5e has done is take the cards away from the fighter and rogue and left them on the wizard and cleric (though they did try to obfuscate that fact by making the spells solid blocks of text that make them much less convenient to use at the table). So the wizard and cleric get kewl powerz (i.e., spells), IN ADDITION TO BEING ABLE TO IMPROVISE ACTIONS, while the fighter and the rogue get nothing but to be able to improvise actions.

There has to be some way to give the fighter and rogue fun options to use in combat so their experience isn't either stale "I swing at it again" or a constant scramble to think of some new thing to do (which isn't even always possible in some situations) while at the same time not encourage an "all cards all the time" approach at many gaming tables.




And yet players had FUN all these years (minus 4e years) being the fighter! Something must be right about it!

//sarcasm
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Logical fallacy, just because you can have fun with something doesn't mean you're doing anything right. Take drug addiction or the Jack@ss franchise for example.

Fighters could pull off the occasional cool stunt, however their stunts required DM approval and so they ended up doing twice the work and roleplaying for occasionally on a good day if the DM was lenient equal impact to the wizard/cleric.


Logical fallacy, just because you can have fun with something doesn't mean you're doing anything right. Take drug addiction or the Jacdk@ss franchise for example




lol...fallacy is determining that there is a "right" way to play a game in your imagination. And that there is somehow this idea of a standard model of fun.

Your examples are poor. Many people have fun doing drugs and/or watching/participating in the jack*** franchise.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
No my examples are great, I never said you couldn't have fun. I said fun doesn't equal right.
My point is that fun is in fact not standardized, but that there is nothing inherently good, right, intelligent, or fair in any individual person's fun/idea thereof.

I'll further expand that to say fun doesn't equal good idea.

The design should be solid robust, intelligent and balanced.

The stupid should come form the players crazy ideas.
No my examples are great, I never said you couldn't have fun. I said fun doesn't equal right.

I'll further expand that to say fun doesn't equal good idea.

The design should be solid robust, intelligent and balanced.

The stupid should come form the players crazy ideas. 



I don't get your point. Are you saying that the millions of players who played pre-4e fighters were doing it wrong?

Is there a right way to have fun playing a game in your imagination? How do you model that, more importantly how do you enforce that upon someone else?
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
This playtest fighter is definitely the most scrub-friendly character type I've seen since O.Sagat in Super Turbo. I hate it.

 But that's not even my greatest concern. What's really troubling me is that the fighter class as a whole seems intentionally incongruent in progression as compared to the others. At least for rogues, I can see where the choices were made (even if they were given the *****iest choices possible), and that they're roughly comparable to the same choices Clerics and Wizards are making. Fighters just seem to have less to make for no particuar reason, that's just utter bull****.
This playtest fighter is definitely the most scrub-friendly character type I've seen since O.Sagat in Super Turbo. I hate it.

 But that's not even my greatest concern. What's really troubling me is that the fighter class as a whole seems intentionally incongruent in progression as compared to the others. At least for rogues, I can see where the choices were made (even if they were given the *****iest choices possible), and that they're roughly comparable to the same choices Clerics and Wizards are making. Fighters just seem to have less to make for no particuar reason, that's just utter bull****.



Yeah...too bad they got most of the kills though.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
My point is that just because you're having fun doesn't mean that everyone else is.

Furthermore that just because something is fun as it is doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be improved.

 
Sign In to post comments