Can The Fighter Class Not Be Awful?

In my group's DND Next playtest, I was the fighter. I have some critiques about the fighter I believe I should bring to your attention.


Immediately, I was put off that the fighter was the only character with a one-page character sheet. Most of the time I would see that as an improvement, but when every other class had two page, I began to wonder what was missing. I soon saw the reason why the Fighter needed only one page: there's no real diversity of what the fighter can actually do. The Fighter's role in 4e was pretty good: He moves around the battle field, gives the enemy a hard time when they try to move, helped other players get into flanking position, and set up some combo attacks. The playtest version, of course, has no oppritunity of attacks, flanking, combat advantage, or even any options for the fighter other than "attack." There wasn't really much for my fighter to do, mechanically, other than run and draw fire. 

By the way, I think there need to be some kind of horde/mob rules, or something, to unburden the DM  due to having to track multiple enemies with their own individual ACs and HP.  

Also, I know you guys seem to be afraid to use anything from 4e (the hit dice are totally just worse healing surges) and really want to go back to that "old school" feel, but, c'mon. You made those games already, and this one just feels like some sort of bastard offspring of older editions, but somehow less fun. The only thing the game made me nostalgic for was playing 4e. The only fun we actually had with the game came from my group roleplaying and cracking jokes, but that's the kind of fun that we can have with any other system. 

All I'm asking is to not be punished for playing a martial character. Maybe put in some theme or background stuff that gives the class more options. If you guys REALLY want to make an oldschool clone, just call this "D&D: Classic", and then maybe try an actually new system for Next.
I don't see how you are being punished :P The fighter outdamages anything else in the playtest....easily. Admittedly it is kind of dull at level 1, but as soon as you get level 2 the fighter becomes the most active character in the roster. This is from my play experience however.
My two copper.
I don't see how you are being punished :P The fighter outdamages anything else in the playtest....easily. Admittedly it is kind of dull at level 1, but as soon as you get level 2 the fighter becomes the most active character in the roster. This is from my play experience however.



I think it becomes an issue when the cleric of Moradin casts 'Crusader's Strike' (lasts an hour) or there is a Spirtual weapon rolling around. Both of those spells give the Clerics a comprable damage output to the Fighter. Alot of the low level encounters in the caves of chaos are with monsters that are pretty much guarenteed 1 hit kills for all of the party.

They've talked in the buildup to the playtest about how they want to give each character should have a chance to shine, it seems that the fighter will only actually stand out when the casters choose not to unload spells in an encounter rather than just coasting on at wills. 

I think you should take the time to listen to the latest D&D Official Podcast. It will probably reassure you a bit. They talk about how they only gave us very basic characters.

Remember, this is just one fighter, not every fighter. They've even said that this is a very simple fighter. Personally, I like that the character is so simple, because I feel that it encourages more creative roleplaying...but I understand that not everyone feels that way.

Seriously, listen to the podcast...it might make you feel a little better.
I think you should take the time to listen to the latest D&D Official Podcast. It will probably reassure you a bit. They talk about how they only gave us very basic characters



Coming from 4e i sincerely hope this is only a draft (and a very raw draft) of a fighter. Cleave is not something that should be "craved" so much, and the extra action, while nice, should be up 1/encounter.

Both clerics not only have a similar damage output, but can potentially surpass the fighter (and be able to do support at the same time).

Chauntea/Lathander/Torm Cleric since 1995 My husband married a DM - καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/14.jpg)

Coming from 4e i sincerely hope this is only a draft (and a very raw draft) of a fighter.

My request is in the other direction as well. I hope this is only a draft (and an overly cooked draft) of a cleric and wizard and rogue.

I want my brand-new-to-D&D players to be able to choose a wizard or cleric or rogue with the same simplicity that is present in this playtest fighter. I am confident that the game will have optional modular supplements that will let me play a more complex fighter. But with the assumption that this playtest *is* the baseline, I am concerned that the wizard, cleric and rogue will, with each optional modular supplement, remain more complex than their equivalent fighter.

I already have the game that fits my play style. I am told Next will allow for all play styles. I am fearful that part of this will include an approach that says "if you like bookkeeping, play a wizard; if you like being the most powerful, play a cleric; if you like simplicity, play a fighter".

I do not want play stuyle to be a factor in determining which class you should play. I want play style to determine which approach you take to the class you want to play.
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.
Just to try things out, a friend and I played a few mock combats with the Fighter cranked up to level 3.  All of a sudden, with his Fighter's Surge and Cleave mechanics, he felt very different to play.  He can mow through twenty kobolds in less than half the time it would take any other character.  I think the Fighter will be fine, and is anything but boring to play.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Just to try things out, a friend and I played a few mock combats with the Fighter cranked up to level 3.  All of a sudden, with his Fighter's Surge and Cleave mechanics, he felt very different to play.  He can mow through twenty kobolds in less than half the time it would take any other character.  I think the Fighter will be fine, and is anything but boring to play.



How's that, since the wizard can do the same and even without thinking about positioning? Bring something, that has more than 4 or 5 hitpoints and the Fighter begins to matter. But kobolds are the wizards job.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

when the fighter last night was beating away on the geltounos cube or a few nights ago standing two to two with an ogre, ya I would say they bring A LOT TO THE TABLE. kobolds and goblin are mooks that is it. They die whole sale with nice wet splatting sounds.
and my frist question.


did you try to improvise ANY of yoru actions?


improvise can make fighters one of the most fun and interesting characters because he doesn't have to worry about the opportunity cost of not improvising. there are few times the clerics or wizards aren't using magic, and so it's down to the rogues and the fighters to use the improvise mechanic to get things done. rogues should be using SA when they can, and disarming with dex improvise checks when they can't. fighters should be using improvise to push, pull, tackle, throw tables, smash doors etc.

if you just basic attack with a fighter or rogue, you are only shortchanging yourself.
and my frist question.
did you try to improvise ANY of yoru actions?
improvise can make fighters one of the most fun and interesting characters because he doesn't have to worry about the opportunity cost of not improvising. there are few times the clerics or wizards aren't using magic, and so it's down to the rogues and the fighters to use the improvise mechanic to get things done. rogues should be using SA when they can, and disarming with dex improvise checks when they can't. fighters should be using improvise to push, pull, tackle, throw tables, smash doors etc.
if you just basic attack with a fighter or rogue, you are only shortchanging yourself.

The rules need to work without the improvise action. It's there to somehow insist that the 4e players didn't know how to do that if it's not on the sheet, but improvisation does not change the game drastically. If my character is only as useful as my creativity, then he's only as useful as my DM's ability to say yes or no.

That's bad. It's not a DM trust issue; it's not a case of lack of creativity. It's a problem with the gaming rules themselves, because they don't account for the classes being good enough to stand on their own without it. It wreaks of being coloured by Mearls' 1e and 2e nostalgia. That nostalgia that he went on about in Legends and Lore, stating that he had to be the rules lawyer, and regularly cheat and trick his DM to be useful.

Mearls was That Guy. We don't want to design a game based on the martial classes requiring that kind of play.

i'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

improvisation is a catch all to allow players to be creative, at the same time the DM has to not be a moron. you can't fix stupid, it doesn't matter how many rules you have.

chances are if a DM can't handle no rules, he can't handle many rules either, plain and simple, if improvisation is bad for you then get a better DM.

improvise DOES change the game drastically, it allows for the kind of imagination and creativity that will showcase the good players from the bad. i'm sorry if this game suddenly takes skill and creativity, i'm sorry if everything is suddenly not a logical descision that is clearly outlined in your class abilities and rule section 3.28B, and i'm sorry if you are annoyed that a computer can no langer play D&D, but thats the direction they decided to move into.

and YES, the fighter CAN stand without improvise, just like the wizard and everyone else, he doesn't NEED to use it, but he will be a better player with it.

just like the wizard will be a better player with improvise. suddenly spells have different uses. maybe i want to improvise my magic missile to attack the chadilier hanging overtop of all those baddies. maybe i want it to target the ores hands and try to disarm him.

and no, it's not the DM that says yes or no. it's the dice. you want to target something with improvise? roll opposed dex. you want to tackle something with improvise? roll opposed strength, etc.

when a character wants to try soemthing, the DM should never flat out say "no". Thats just a bad DM, and as much as youw ant the rules to fix bad DM's, it'll never happen.  even if the action is impossible, the DM should say "you can try" and then explain why it fails, this both lets the player play, and shows them what limitation stopped them from succeding
In my group's DND Next playtest, I was the fighter. I have some critiques about the fighter I believe I should bring to your attention.


Immediately, I was put off that the fighter was the only character with a one-page character sheet. Most of the time I would see that as an improvement, but when every other class had two page, I began to wonder what was missing. I soon saw the reason why the Fighter needed only one page: there's no real diversity of what the fighter can actually do. The Fighter's role in 4e was pretty good: He moves around the battle field, gives the enemy a hard time when they try to move, helped other players get into flanking position, and set up some combo attacks. The playtest version, of course, has no oppritunity of attacks, flanking, combat advantage, or even any options for the fighter other than "attack." There wasn't really much for my fighter to do, mechanically, other than run and draw fire. 

By the way, I think there need to be some kind of horde/mob rules, or something, to unburden the DM  due to having to track multiple enemies with their own individual ACs and HP.  

Also, I know you guys seem to be afraid to use anything from 4e (the hit dice are totally just worse healing surges) and really want to go back to that "old school" feel, but, c'mon. You made those games already, and this one just feels like some sort of bastard offspring of older editions, but somehow less fun. The only thing the game made me nostalgic for was playing 4e. The only fun we actually had with the game came from my group roleplaying and cracking jokes, but that's the kind of fun that we can have with any other system. 

All I'm asking is to not be punished for playing a martial character. Maybe put in some theme or background stuff that gives the class more options. If you guys REALLY want to make an oldschool clone, just call this "D&D: Classic", and then maybe try an actually new system for Next.



This + lots.

It really does feel as though the whole playtest stuff is 'avoid 4e at all cost and bring back old editions'. I know i both played and then DM'd this over the weekend with my adult group and then my kids game. Neither group really enjoyed the experience but the main complaint was this the game wasn't as fun as the game we normally play. Like the original post I also played the fighter to try something from the cleric class i normally like to play. It very quickly became i swing my weapon at the monster which in fairness is no different to the 1e/2e games we played when i was a kid 30 years ago. I had thought we had moved beyond that though.

For those of you with kids please check out the D&D Parents Group. http://community.wizards.com/dndparents


improvise can make fighters one of the most fun and interesting characters because he doesn't have to worry about the opportunity cost of not improvising. there are few times the clerics or wizards aren't using magic, and so it's down to the rogues and the fighters to use the improvise mechanic to get things done. rogues should be using SA when they can, and disarming with dex improvise checks when they can't. fighters should be using improvise to push, pull, tackle, throw tables, smash doors etc.

if you just basic attack with a fighter or rogue, you are only shortchanging yourself.



This is complete and utter FUD. 

There fighter is not the most intersting character with improvisation. Its the weakest. Your improvisational options dramatically expand with each new game mechanic that is introduced to a character. The Fighter has very few game mechanics compared to every other class in the game. Even a rogue in the end gets some side mechanics that start it to edge out the fighter. Right now in the Playtest the strongest thing the fighter gets is the extra action as you can string a few improvised actions together. Compare that to spells, sneak attack, etc and it starts to lose its shine. 

What each class needs is at least some level of options which expands its options. This has to be different then +X to attack, or X additional attacks a round. It needs to be something that brings a new option category to the table. I need to be able to think on it and go how can I use this? What synergies does it have? How does this make me different then class X?

Those are the golden questions. 
so youa re sayign that the wizard is able to then make any of the str improvisation checks that the fighter can? or how about all those dex based ones, oh right.

just because he has maybe a few more options with improvisation doesn't mean he will be able to back them up with the stats. the fighter is going to be able to easilly throw a table, the wizard is going to have a hard time tiping it up to hide behind.
so youa re sayign that the wizard is able to then make any of the str improvisation checks that the fighter can? or how about all those dex based ones, oh right.

just because he has maybe a few more options with improvisation doesn't mean he will be able to back them up with the stats. the fighter is going to be able to easilly throw a table, the wizard is going to have a hard time tiping it up to hide behind.


The wizard CAN do all that, AND MORE.

That's the problem.

OK, the scrawny wizard can't open the door.  But maybe his spell can.

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.
I'll agree.. "Hmm - I use Ray of Frost to coat the floor with ice, and try to trip up the onrushing hoard, making them all fall prone in the doorway"


When the only tools the fighter has are physical brawn, he's a hammer looking for a nail.  More built-in options means more versatility with improvisation in addtion to their on-paper effects.  
 
I want my brand-new-to-D&D players to be able to choose a wizard or cleric or rogue with the same simplicity that is present in this playtest fighter. I am confident that the game will have optional modular supplements that will let me play a more complex fighter. But with the assumption that this playtest *is* the baseline, I am concerned that the wizard, cleric and rogue will, with each optional modular supplement, remain more complex than their equivalent fighter.



Frankly i could agree with this, but i recognize there are game mechanics that are inherently harder to use than cleave or 2/day extra action.

Chauntea/Lathander/Torm Cleric since 1995 My husband married a DM - καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/14.jpg)

so youa re sayign that the wizard is able to then make any of the str improvisation checks that the fighter can? or how about all those dex based ones, oh right.

just because he has maybe a few more options with improvisation doesn't mean he will be able to back them up with the stats. the fighter is going to be able to easilly throw a table, the wizard is going to have a hard time tiping it up to hide behind.

....Have you ever actually lifted a wooden table before? I'm sure the 8STR wizard can lift a table onto it's side. I'm no fighter, but I can definitely lift a heavy oak table. It's even easier if I'm only trying to unbalance it to get it onto it's side. Given I'd be of 'average strength' in D&D, probably below average, I'd say that's about the same strength score as a wizard. If I can do it, a wizard can.

If this was really a thing that was problematic, the Wizard would have trouble lifting his 5lb spellbook, or getting up in the morning, as he'd be crushed under the weight of his own body.


i'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

Thank you for pointing out subjective opinion can be wrong. Would you like to tell me that I play D&D wrong too? Or perhaps you'd like to critique my thoughts on 4e? It's opinion, I can't possibly feel that improvise is garbage and a waste of ink and be wrong. You enjoy it, you are no more or less right than I am. Let's push that aside immediately.

improvisation is a catch all to allow players to be creative, at the same time the DM has to not be a moron. you can't fix stupid, it doesn't matter how many rules you have.

...Huh, how did we ever get along without this in previous editions!? How could I have been so blind - what did we ever do withou- oh, right. We were still creative and did the same thing. We just didn't need it to be physically codified and tell us how long it takes.

chances are if a DM can't handle no rules, he can't handle many rules either, plain and simple, if improvisation is bad for you then get a better DM.

What are you even talking about? A DM can't handle improvisation? Get a better DM? ...Are you actually reading posts, or are you just tossing stuff out there in the hopes you rebutt some statement?

improvise DOES change the game drastically, it allows for the kind of imagination and creativity that will showcase the good players from the bad. i'm sorry if this game suddenly takes skill and creativity, i'm sorry if everything is suddenly not a logical descision that is clearly outlined in your class abilities and rule section 3.28B, and i'm sorry if you are annoyed that a computer can no langer play D&D, but thats the direction they decided to move into.

...You've never played D&D before, have you? Because if you did, you'd know that we never needed this codified as an action. 4e has Page 42, which is as close as it ever got.

And it doesn't take skill and creativity. It requires being able to ask a question. That's neither skilled, nor creative. In fact, it's even less creative because the rules point out that you can do this. Giving you some impetuous to use this action. Rather than simply coming up with it on your own. Ya know, 'like in the good ol' days'. It's a thing we did already. Now Mearls just decided to take the 'I can't improvise, because it's not on the sheet!' vocal minority of 4e, and slap us all in the face with it.

and YES, the fighter CAN stand without improvise, just like the wizard and everyone else, he doesn't NEED to use it, but he will be a better player with it.

No, he won't. And the other classes don't need it at all. The wizard can get drunk and fire magic missile and be better than every other character in the game. How's that for creativity? Oh, it's not very creative at all. It's just basic abuse of the rules.

If the fighter wants to be 'the best fighter', and have the most steady, reliable damage, he'll have to ignore Improvise. Else he loses that to the Wizard on turn 2. How? Magic Missile is more reliable (It doesn't miss) and quickly scales up to multiple, auto-hitting missiles. Why would the Wizard ever use improvise? He has spells like Grease and Ray of Frost at his disposal. Those are his improvisation actions.

just like the wizard will be a better player with improvise. suddenly spells have different uses. maybe i want to improvise my magic missile to attack the chadilier hanging overtop of all those baddies. maybe i want it to target the ores hands and try to disarm him.

That's no improvisation. That's utilizing your environment. If I put a chandalier in the room, I expect it to get used for combat. Improvisation means it's unexpected and possible unintended. Using a feature of a setting is neither.

and no, it's not the DM that says yes or no. it's the dice. you want to target something with improvise? roll opposed dex. you want to tackle something with improvise? roll opposed strength, etc.

when a character wants to try soemthing, the DM should never flat out say "no". Thats just a bad DM, and as much as youw ant the rules to fix bad DM's, it'll never happen.  even if the action is impossible, the DM should say "you can try" and then explain why it fails, this both lets the player play, and shows them what limitation stopped them from succeding


/yawn, 'It's not the DM, it's the dice!" Then you shouldn't have to ask the DM at all. We should just put grappling, bullrushing, sundering and tripping back in as codified actions. We remove the unnecessary step of "DM, May I?" and just move onto the "Yes, you can." part, wherein the dice are rolled. If these are things that we are expected to use, and are within the scope of the rules, then we can just remove the pointless, time-wasting formality of mentally masturbating the DM, and move on to playing the game.

And I say this as a DM - I don't want my players to fellate me by asking if I will allow them to perform their actions. I'd much rather they decide that they want to trip, sunder or bullrush an opponent, and then I'll adjudicate from there.
so youa re sayign that the wizard is able to then make any of the str improvisation checks that the fighter can? or how about all those dex based ones, oh right.

just because he has maybe a few more options with improvisation doesn't mean he will be able to back them up with the stats. the fighter is going to be able to easilly throw a table, the wizard is going to have a hard time tiping it up to hide behind.


The wizard CAN do all that, AND MORE.

That's the problem.

OK, the scrawny wizard can't open the door.  But maybe his spell can.




maybe, but are you going to use a spell to open a door when the fighter can hit it? i can see buurning hands setting the door on fire, i can see magic missile blasting it open (although we wont know until we can see some object hardness rules), or i can see the wazard ray-of-frost-ing it to allow for the fighter to shatter it mroe easilly

ys, there may be more than one way to open a door, but the fighter doesn't have to use a spell to do it, or to trip or restrain a monster, or disarm etc.

just because he has less moving parts doesn't mean he can't be just as useful. if you really want to test this out. play without the fighter, and post your results.
@ Yuwain:

Why would the Wizard not use his/her at-will Magic Missile to open a door by breaking the lock, at range?

I mean, sure... he could let the Fighter do it, but the argument here is that the Wizard can also do it, and do it better. And at 1st level even, so no one can say that it was expected of him, as the "late-bloomer" class, which is a notion that is all kinds of wrong by itself.

And it doesn't take skill and creativity. It requires being able to ask a question. That's neither skilled, nor creative. In fact, it's even less creative because the rules point out that you can do this. Giving you some impetuous to use this action. Rather than simply coming up with it on your own. Ya know, 'like in the good ol' days'. It's a thing we did already. Now Mearls just decided to take the 'I can't improvise, because it's not on the sheet!' vocal minority of 4e, and slap us all in the face with it.



so your butthurt that a line in the rules insulted you, i get that. go cry in a corner or something, and come back when you have settled down.

saying that it isn't creative however..... have YOU played dnd before? why do we need to codify bull rush? why? 3.5 restricted you so much, 4e restricted you less, but it still did, why do we need these powers laid out before us to know that we can try it?

you can play your uncreative sequantial rules game all you want, have fun hacking away at low 4 low level creatures for an hour all you want, the rest of us will go where the fun is.

and for the last time, improvisation is built into the action, the fighter doesn't have to give up his attack to do anything that would be considered incedental, or part of his attack action.
@ dapifer

maybe the wizard can break the lock at range....... with the appropriate dex check

magic missile is an auto hit, yes, but it doesn't say if the wizard can target pinpoint or if he can even target with it at all (what is the nature of his magic?)

i would rule a dex check needed.


Thank you for pointing out subjective opinion can be wrong. Would you like to tell me that I play D&D wrong too? Or perhaps you'd like to critique my thoughts on 4e? It's opinion, I can't possibly feel that improvise is garbage and a waste of ink and be wrong. You enjoy it, you are no more or less right than I am. Let's push that aside immediately.




grow a pair

you are using your opinion in an argument, that makes it subject to criticism. if you don't like that then don't speak, but don't try to hide behind the word "opinion".



...Are you bad at these forums, or something? This kind of stuff makes you less likely to stick around.

But no, I'm not 'hiding behind opinion'. If I can be wrong, then so can you. And you are. As people are clearly showing you. Perhaps you should calm down? You're incredibly heated about a game, sir.

And it doesn't take skill and creativity. It requires being able to ask a question. That's neither skilled, nor creative. In fact, it's even less creative because the rules point out that you can do this. Giving you some impetuous to use this action. Rather than simply coming up with it on your own. Ya know, 'like in the good ol' days'. It's a thing we did already. Now Mearls just decided to take the 'I can't improvise, because it's not on the sheet!' vocal minority of 4e, and slap us all in the face with it.



so your butthurt that a line in the rules insulted you, i get that. go cry in a corner or something, and come back when you have settled down.

saying that it isn't creative however..... have YOU played dnd before? why do we need to codify bull rush? why? 3.5 restricted you so much, 4e restricted you less, but it still did, why do we need these powers laid out before us to know that we can try it?

you can play your uncreative sequantial rules game all you want, have fun hacking away at low 4 low level creatures for an hour all you want, the rest of us will go where the fun is.

and for the last time, improvisation is built into the action, the fighter doesn't have to give up his attack to do anything that would be considered incedental, or part of his attack action.



Did you miss the end of my post? You know, that whole section about "DM, May I?" and the redundancy of the improvise action? Again, if you want your players to jerk you off by asking if they can or not, that's great. I don't want my players to do that, because it means both of us can spend more time playing the game, and not negotiating what they're allowed to do.

@ Yuwain: And even then he can still do it, and at range. He could use ray of frost to freeze the locks and then crack it open with his/her staff.

And the Wizard still gets a lot of spells and other stuff.

You have proven our point, even with your required DEX check, the Wizard can do what the Fighter can, but the Fighter can't do some of the things the Wizard can.

Improvisation is not the sole premise of the Fighter, all classes have it.

Spells are the sole premise of the Casters, the Fighter has no access to them and cannot replicate what they can do.

Spells can do what they say in their descriptors without permission of the DM, also with DM's permission, they can be used in clever and improvised ways to do even more things that what their descriptions would suggest.

In response, the Fighter has... improvisation and nothing else.
@ Dapifer

so the wizard can take a second action in a round twice per day? or attack a second monster after killing the first? (on his basic attack, AE spells have a cost) or deal damage even with a missed role? (i guess if he only uses MM)

you are conviently ignoring what a fighter CAN do.

and wizards has allready promised long ago that a "not simple" fighter will be released after...... so not only are you comparing a 4.0 essentials slayer to a 4th wizard, you are ignoring the extra things that fighter can do

not very fair for the fighter don't you think?
also

you guys know whats fun?

class balance is out of scope for this playtest 

so why are we even arguing this again? i have entertained this thread, but really it's not important.
pot calling kettle black, blah blah blah.

i love people like you, you escalate the argument, and then you cry when you get cornered. the fact that you are resorting to arguments outside of the current scope of study suggests you have nothing left to say. i'm sorry your wrong, and that you can't take that. i know it burns people like you to the very core. but thats not my problem

go take a time out kid.

you are the one escelating the argument, you are the one making the first attacks, i am only responding in kind.



IMAGE(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/201/508/221435NothingtodoHereGifMadethiscuzIwas2479d82822723.gif?1321553488)

so youa re sayign that the wizard is able to then make any of the str improvisation checks that the fighter can? or how about all those dex based ones, oh right.

just because he has maybe a few more options with improvisation doesn't mean he will be able to back them up with the stats. the fighter is going to be able to easilly throw a table, the wizard is going to have a hard time tiping it up to hide behind.



The paladin, cleric, barbarian, ranger, and any other class that uses strength will be able to do what the fighter can do, AND MORE.


It not merely a balance consideration between fighters and wizards.
[Initial Post Deleted for Lack of Relevance after moderation ofquoted post. - DB]

I truly hope that the fighter gets actual class features, even on the "simple" build, in DDN.

By actual class features, I don't mean an extra feat every other level.
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.
I'm reasonably sure he's leaving because he's not being listened to.



IMAGE(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Now+this+guy+s+got+it+right+_8928f6fa82bce31a3b074d1ca9cf3a89.jpg)
This is basically it. There's no point in discussion with someone who's only looking to spew vitriol at those who disagree.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code here: company.wizards.com/conduct


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.

Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.

Your friendly neighborhood Revenant Minotaur Half-Blooded Dragonborn Fighter Hybrid Barbarian Multiclassing into Warlord

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1223957875/Scorecards/Landscape.png)

Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.


I'd rather not wait until 2015 for a fighter that's worth playing.
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.
so youa re sayign that the wizard is able to then make any of the str improvisation checks that the fighter can? or how about all those dex based ones, oh right.

just because he has maybe a few more options with improvisation doesn't mean he will be able to back them up with the stats. the fighter is going to be able to easilly throw a table, the wizard is going to have a hard time tiping it up to hide behind.



The paladin, cleric, barbarian, ranger, and any other class that uses strength will be able to do what the fighter can do, AND MORE.


It not merely a balance consideration between fighters and wizards.




oh cool! you know the rules for char generation allready!?!? can i see them?

oh wait, you don't, your just guessing.

so don't be offended when i dismiss that argument as hot air.
Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.


I'd rather not wait until 2015 for a fighter that's worth playing.


Not to be offensive, but why don't you at least wait 'till more stuff comes out? Why base all opinions on an alpha that's not even meant to provide a solid base for class critique?

Your friendly neighborhood Revenant Minotaur Half-Blooded Dragonborn Fighter Hybrid Barbarian Multiclassing into Warlord

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1223957875/Scorecards/Landscape.png)

Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.


I'd rather not wait until 2015 for a fighter that's worth playing.



While I understand Buzzhorns point, I second this post.  We shouldn't have to wait for the first, second, or third round of spatbooks to come out to give us a complex fighter.
Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.


I'd rather not wait until 2015 for a fighter that's worth playing.




so you would rather not wait until the game is launched to play a class you can't play until the game is launched?
Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.


I'd rather not wait until 2015 for a fighter that's worth playing.



While I understand Buzzhorns point, I second this post.  We shouldn't have to wait for the first, second, or third round of spatbooks to come out to give us a complex fighter.




did you folks evn read the test material? they clearly stated that this is not a representation of the classes or the balance and that it's still in the works

would you rather playtest without PC's?
Why the heck is everyone complaining about the fighter when it's barely even beta? Not even, more like pre-alpha? Either use your own creativity or wait for the promised "more complex" options.


I'd rather not wait until 2015 for a fighter that's worth playing.



While I understand Buzzhorns point, I second this post.  We shouldn't have to wait for the first, second, or third round of spatbooks to come out to give us a complex fighter.




did you folks evn read the test material? they clearly stated that this is not a representation of the classes or the balance and that it's still in the works

would you rather playtest without PC's?


^ This.

Your friendly neighborhood Revenant Minotaur Half-Blooded Dragonborn Fighter Hybrid Barbarian Multiclassing into Warlord

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1223957875/Scorecards/Landscape.png)

Sign In to post comments