Wizards have schools and Clerics have Domains. Shouldn't Fighters have Fighting Styles?

I've been kicking some ideas about the fighter around and I keep coming back to the same question.  Why does "Fighter" inherently have to translate to "Conan" style of combatant.  From everything that we've read about the Dev Team's vision of what makes a fighter a fighter, they are not just the "grab something big and heavy and hit the bad guy relentlessly" that we picture a Barbarian being.  I get the impression that they exist more in the "Trained and highly disciplined warrior, deadly in his craft".  A professional warrior.

That said, I considered the above idea along side the Wizard and Cleric, the two classes most commonly juxtaposed against the fighter for the purpose of saying "See! He's boring!"  Wizards are professionally trained magic users, taught their powers by masters, often focusing in a given school of magic.  Clerics are professionally trained workers of divine power, taught to channel their powers in monasteries, often focusing in a given domain that represents the glory of their deity.

Fighters have Domains/Schools as well, they're just called Fighting Styles.  Just because two people are trained in the use of the sword, doesn't mean they know the same moves and combat styles.  A florentine fencer is not going to fight the same way as a strict saber fencer.  Just because a florentine fencer uses two weapons doesn't mean he'll share ANY technique or attack patterns as someone trained in Niten Ichi-ryu (the two-sword style developed by Musashi Miyamoto).

There are aggressive styles, defensive styles, flashy styles.  If the Fighter is the master of the disciplined weapon, why not make that part of their class creation and design/incorporate the same idea of Domains/Schools, but have them define what style of combat they were trained in.  There's been talk of an interview/article where it was mentioned that Fighters may potentially be able to choose two different themes.  I love it, but make it simple, one of them is limited to a group of themes that ONLY the Fighters can take that decides their combat style.  This style should define the basic "Core" mechanics of that particular fighter when in combat.  You could possibly consider them "Fighter Cantrips" in the sense that just like Cantrips are what a Wizard has done SO many times by training that they're just second nature, these... let's call them Style Techniques, are what a fighter trained in a particular style is capable of just doing, perhaps even reflexively in certain cases.

I think something like that would give some options, versatility, and freedom to the Fighter that a lot of people seem to really be upset about missing, while still fitting in thematically and not just making them do magical stuff with a sword (shockwaves, energy blades, etc).  I don't think anyone is wanting to see Fighter's throwing vaccuum blades when they swing.
I believe it has been stated somewhere that Combat Maneuvers are coming later. That would help in diversifying the Fighter.
You Learn Something New Every Day!
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.


Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity
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.
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.


Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity



Oh I don't know, maybe having a durable front-line fighter able to dish out tons of damage rather consistently is a nice thing to have around?
Oh I don't know, maybe having a durable front-line fighter able to dish out tons of damage rather consistently is a nice thing to have around?

The problem with that is that both Clerics are more durable and hit nearly as hard. Factor in Spiritual Hammer and Crusader's Strike, respectively, and they hit harder.

Also, the Fighter's reliability isn't baked into the class. It's the Theme that makes him dependable. 

Alas, themes aren't class-dependent, leading to weird situations where a cleric (or wizard, if you really wanted to?) could be a better defender than the fighter. But I can picture either fighter-only themes, or something similar but just for fighters.

I can picture an Archer theme that takes away Cleave and gives you something ranged instead, for instance.
Oh I don't know, maybe having a durable front-line fighter able to dish out tons of damage rather consistently is a nice thing to have around?

The problem with that is that both Clerics are more durable and hit nearly as hard. Factor in Spiritual Hammer and Crusader's Strike, respectively, and they hit harder.



Both of which are expendable resources you can use only a few times per day, while the fighter just keeps on trucking. Also, 1d10 +2, is nowhere even near as good as 2d6+7. Expected (average) damage value for the cleric is 7.5, whereas for the fighter it's a whopping 14, i.e. almost twice as much and he can just keep swinging all day long. So no, the cleric most certainly doesn't hit as hard, not even close.


Also, the Fighter's reliability isn't baked into the class. It's the Theme that makes him dependable. 



Yeah, it kinda is, fighter has a high attack bonus, high average damage, great durability and they aren't dependent on any resource (such as spells per day or rage), this equals consistent and dependable damage.
I like the idea of fighters getting a fighting style option to balance with cantrips and schemes. The designers have talked about giving fighters two themes at first level, but that actually worries me a bit. If they do it wrong there will be a lot of people taking 1 level of fighter just for the extra theme and harkens back to the old 3e problem where the fighter got more feats but no class powers that where unique to fighters.

Alas, themes aren't class-dependent, leading to weird situations where a cleric (or wizard, if you really wanted to?) could be a better defender than the fighter. But I can picture either fighter-only themes, or something similar but just for fighters.

That that other characters can be a better defender then a fighter is to be expected. 5e is harkening back to the older character concepts, and Fighters are not naturally defenders now, they are strikers. You are going to have to take a theme or some other option to make a defender fighter in 5e.

The designers have said that themes should be universal, but I would be surprised if there are not class specific themes. The first PHB is likely to avoid them, picking the most generally useful themes for the initial list, but they will turn up shortly there after unless the designers lay down a strict rule against class specific themes.

Alas, themes aren't class-dependent, leading to weird situations where a cleric (or wizard, if you really wanted to?) could be a better defender than the fighter.



I did want to throw out that as it currently stands, I don't see a Wizard ever being able to make a better front-line defender, just by simple nature that they lose the ability to cast even their cantrips if they put on any armor whatsoever.  The cleric however, that probably wouldn't be too hard to pull off, but getting back to the original idea of the Fighting Style, if your Fighter specifically takes a style that is more defensive, he should still be capable of being a better draw/soak point for enemy attacks than the Cleric.

Also, it was asked what does the Fighter CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?  Well, hopefully if they go with a 2-Theme option for the fighter and require one of them to be a Fighting Style, then it would bring as much to the table as a Cleric choosing their Domain abilities or a Wizard choosing their school abilities.

When I talk about Fighter Cantrips/Style Techniques, more specifically I imagine something like, if they take a style that emphasizes footwork, positioning, and striking when the opponent is vulnerable, as any number of the various schools of fencing or dueling might, then they might get, as examples: (2 assumptions about the following example. 1. As a nimble style, the Fighter would be using a Finesse weapon, likely Rapier.  2. The math and mechanics are purely for illustrative purpose here.)

The Salute - As a Move, you directly challenge and draw the attention of an enemy adjacent to you.  This is considered in effect until the start of your next turn.
Parry - When an enemy you have Saluted  attacks you, as a Reaction you may make a Dex check and add 1/2 of your result to your AC for the purposes of determining whether or not the enemy's attack hits.
Bad Form - If an enemy you have Saluted attacks one of your allies without attacking you or move's away from you without attacking, you may use a Reaction to make a weapon attack against it.

I know those sound and look exactly like 4e fighter Mark powers, but if we're discussing the idea of the Class choices defining how the Fighter works, then it's easiest to work from a simple point of reference.

By tying simple core mechanics or powers to a particular fighting style, and ensuring that EVERY Fighting Style that is an option is properly designed, it allows the Fighter to have a simple core design, but then have their Fighting Style choice define their exact function and role as much as the Cleric's choice of Deity defines their function and role.
Alas, themes aren't class-dependent, leading to weird situations where a cleric (or wizard, if you really wanted to?) could be a better defender than the fighter.



I did want to throw out that as it currently stands, I don't see a Wizard ever being able to make a better front-line defender, just by simple nature that they lose the ability to cast even their cantrips if they put on any armor whatsoever.  The cleric however, that probably wouldn't be too hard to pull off, but getting back to the original idea of the Fighting Style, if your Fighter specifically takes a style that is more defensive, he should still be capable of being a better draw/soak point for enemy attacks than the Cleric.

Also, it was asked what does the Fighter CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?  Well, hopefully if they go with a 2-Theme option for the fighter and require one of them to be a Fighting Style, then it would bring as much to the table as a Cleric choosing their Domain abilities or a Wizard choosing their school abilities.

When I talk about Fighter Cantrips/Style Techniques, more specifically I imagine something like, if they take a style that emphasizes footwork, positioning, and striking when the opponent is vulnerable, as any number of the various schools of fencing or dueling might, then they might get, as examples: (2 assumptions about the following example. 1. As a nimble style, the Fighter would be using a Finesse weapon, likely Rapier.  2. The math and mechanics are purely for illustrative purpose here.)

The Salute - As a Move, you directly challenge and draw the attention of an enemy adjacent to you.  This is considered in effect until the start of your next turn.
Parry - When an enemy you have Saluted  attacks you, as a Reaction you may make a Dex check and add 1/2 of your result to your AC for the purposes of determining whether or not the enemy's attack hits.
Bad Form - If an enemy you have Saluted attacks one of your allies without attacking you or move's away from you without attacking, you may use a Reaction to make a weapon attack against it.

I know those sound and look exactly like 4e fighter Mark powers, but if we're discussing the idea of the Class choices defining how the Fighter works, then it's easiest to work from a simple point of reference.

By tying simple core mechanics or powers to a particular fighting style, and ensuring that EVERY Fighting Style that is an option is properly designed, it allows the Fighter to have a simple core design, but then have their Fighting Style choice define their exact function and role as much as the Cleric's choice of Deity defines their function and role.



It is unlikely that he will ever be a better front line defender (unless they change hit points and AC), but he might be a better defender due to other things.  Probably to early to call on that.
Fighter is a great class for players who want to keep things simple. They dish out great damage and are tough or tougher than all other classes.

If someone feels that the cleric (or another class) is better at this job while having more options, then that is obviously the class they should play. Hence, we have classes for both types of players. 
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.


Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity



Oh I don't know, maybe having a durable front-line fighter able to dish out tons of damage rather consistently is a nice thing to have around?



The only thing the fighter class gives at the moment: 1d8 hit die, Weapon Focus, all weapon and armor proficiencies, fighter's surge at level 2, and it appears an extra +1 to attack over the +2 everyone else gets.

Compare this to the wizard who gets: 1d4 hit die, 4 cantrips, spells (3 at level 1, 4 at level 2, and 6 at level 3), spells that use attack rolls AND spells that impose saving throws.

In comparison, the wizard gets quite a bit more than the fighter. The fighter really needs something else to bring it up to par with the rest of the classes in the packet, and that something else should be those combat manuevers they've been talking about. I eagerly await them.

The rogue needs a bit of help as well, and I would have preferred different spell options on the Cleric of Moradin.
In the playtesting I've run, the fighter has dealt out the lion's share of damage throught the adventure. It easily beat the Wizard and Cleric as a combat threat. I've gotten much the same in reports from other playtesters that I've contacted.

There's quite a difference between thinking something is out of whack when reading it on the page and seeing how it actually works in the field. 

YMMV
Are we really going back to saying - "The Fighter is great, he deals DAMAGE!"?
The Salute - As a Move, you directly challenge and draw the attention of an enemy adjacent to you.  This is considered in effect until the start of your next turn.
Parry - When an enemy you have Saluted  attacks you, as a Reaction you may make a Dex check and add 1/2 of your result to your AC for the purposes of determining whether or not the enemy's attack hits.
Bad Form - If an enemy you have Saluted attacks one of your allies without attacking you or move's away from you without attacking, you may use a Reaction to make a weapon attack against it.

I'd probably change the salute to include a charisma contest to take effect, and either disallow or disadvantaged for non/low intelligent enemies (saluting that hungry bear may be difficult/impossible unless you have handle animal or equivalent). The parry bonus is too high IMO, and I would keep a smaller flat bonus (like +2), or possibly have the enemy be disadvantaged for the attack. Something I would LOVE to see is "Step Up" ability that allows you to follow after someone that attempts to move away from you, up to your movement speed. This would use up your movement on your next turn.

I like the idea of adding a combat style maneuver list akin to cantrips for the fighter class. Other classes can dish damage, but it makes sense that the fighter knows how to do damage AND do it with style. Each style could give specific bonuses, such as:
weapon and shield: additional +1 bonus to AC, or forego bonus for a shield bash attack (uses up your reaction action for the round, and can perform a bull rush or gain advantage for next attack)
two weapon: roll off-hand weapon damage (no stat bonus) when exceeding AC by 5+, maybe include stat bonus when 10+. Let's not add more d20 dice into the calculations. Crit's should probably not include maxing the offhand weapon damage.
two-handed: minimum of stat bonus for weapon damage roll. Roll damage twice (and pick better) when fighting with advantage.
ranged: can fire while adjacent to a single enemy without disadvantage. Minimum of stat bonus for weapon damage roll when attacking with advantage.
unarmed: Ignore armor bonus to AC for non-damage combat maneuvers.

Certainly could add more specific styles as desired.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

The only thing the fighter class gives at the moment: 1d8 hit die, Weapon Focus, all weapon and armor proficiencies, fighter's surge at level 2, and it appears an extra +1 to attack over the +2 everyone else gets.



On level three he has the most HP (his HD is actuall d12), +6 on attacks and a huge 2d6+8 (expected damage value 15) damage. You also forgot to mention cleave, which combined to low amounts of HP the enemies have, means that on average he probably kills two monsters every round.

Also, given how they seem to be going for the old school thing, fighter is probably going to have multiple attacks per round on higher levels.


Compare this to the wizard who gets: 1d4 hit die, 4 cantrips, spells (3 at level 1, 4 at level 2, and 6 at level 3), spells that use attack rolls AND spells that impose saving throws.

In comparison, the wizard gets quite a bit more than the fighter. The fighter really needs something else to bring it up to par with the rest of the classes in the packet, and that something else should be those combat manuevers they've been talking about. I eagerly await them.



Yeah, the wizard gets different stuff, but is it better? I think not. More diverse? Definitely. But not better or more powerful.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind if they spiced up the fighter up a bit (in fact I'm 100% certain they will), but claiming that the fighter is somehow weaker, based on the playtest materials, is quite simply just untrue.


The rogue needs a bit of help as well, and I would have preferred different spell options on the Cleric of Moradin.



Funny that, I was playing rogue myself and it felt downright overpowered. Guess it all is a matter of perception.
I did want to throw out that as it currently stands, I don't see a Wizard ever being able to make a better front-line defender, just by simple nature that they lose the ability to cast even their cantrips if they put on any armor whatsoever.  The cleric however, that probably wouldn't be too hard to pull off, but getting back to the original idea of the Fighting Style, if your Fighter specifically takes a style that is more defensive, he should still be capable of being a better draw/soak point for enemy attacks than the Cleric.

Also, it was asked what does the Fighter CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?  Well, hopefully if they go with a 2-Theme option for the fighter and require one of them to be a Fighting Style, then it would bring as much to the table as a Cleric choosing their Domain abilities or a Wizard choosing their school abilities.

When I talk about Fighter Cantrips/Style Techniques, more specifically I imagine something like, if they take a style that emphasizes footwork, positioning, and striking when the opponent is vulnerable, as any number of the various schools of fencing or dueling might, then they might get, as examples: (2 assumptions about the following example. 1. As a nimble style, the Fighter would be using a Finesse weapon, likely Rapier.  2. The math and mechanics are purely for illustrative purpose here.)

The Salute - As a Move, you directly challenge and draw the attention of an enemy adjacent to you.  This is considered in effect until the start of your next turn.



I was running right alongside you until I got to this part of your post:

Parry - When an enemy you have Saluted  attacks you, as a Reaction you may make a Dex check and add 1/2 of your result to your AC for the purposes of determining whether or not the enemy's attack hits.



Why should my Fencer have to roll to use a technique that he has mastered?  If I spend 10 years, for instance, practicing a Parry technique, I want to know that I can Parry the first time and every time.

Bad Form - If an enemy you have Saluted attacks one of your allies without attacking you or move's away from you without attacking, you may use a Reaction to make a weapon attack against it.

I know those sound and look exactly like 4e fighter Mark powers, but if we're discussing the idea of the Class choices defining how the Fighter works, then it's easiest to work from a simple point of reference.

By tying simple core mechanics or powers to a particular fighting style, and ensuring that EVERY Fighting Style that is an option is properly designed, it allows the Fighter to have a simple core design, but then have their Fighting Style choice define their exact function and role as much as the Cleric's choice of Deity defines their function and role.



I have no more points of contention with anything else you wrote.  And as a compromise to everyone that says "Fighters are so simple, they deal DAMAGE!", I'd be perfectly okay with 'styles' or 'techniques' doing only simple things like granting advantage or disadvantage - no math - just an improved chance to succeed.

Or how about an automatic success on a challenge/check/or Improv action?  I'm not talking forced movement with the complexity of a push/pull/slide, but a Slayer having a 'brute' technique where they automatically succeed on Bull Rushes challenges, always succeed on Intimidate Checks in combat, and always hit with a Charge.  This doesn't make them overpowered, just more fun to play because you aren't always counted on to just be simple and deal DAMAGE!
Are we really going back to saying - "The Fighter is great, he deals DAMAGE!"?



That is exactly what you are hearing... and it still sounds lame.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Essential stances were a simple, quick and pretty elegant solution for any martial classes.  It's sad to see that so far they are going away from the great things about 4th, at least from what we've seen so far. Also hit dice is just so 1st edition. 
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.


Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity



Break out of the box........not a post on improv, so do not go there.

"Fighter" is a general title, who could be classified as a "fighter" with out getting thier own Class title, i.e paladin. The same can be said for the other classic tropes provided.

How far off is a "thief" from an "assassin", not much really.

As far as what they will bring, depends on how this "fighter" group of classes are seperated by theme and the attached feat/powers/manuvers/skills that go with it.

Time will tell
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
Howdy folks,

I've moved this thread to a forum where it is more on-topic.

Thanks.   

All around helpful simian

Alas, themes aren't class-dependent, leading to weird situations where a cleric (or wizard, if you really wanted to?) could be a better defender than the fighter.



I did want to throw out that as it currently stands, I don't see a Wizard ever being able to make a better front-line defender, just by simple nature that they lose the ability to cast even their cantrips if they put on any armor whatsoever.  The cleric however, that probably wouldn't be too hard to pull off, but getting back to the original idea of the Fighting Style, if your Fighter specifically takes a style that is more defensive, he should still be capable of being a better draw/soak point for enemy attacks than the Cleric.

Also, it was asked what does the Fighter CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?  Well, hopefully if they go with a 2-Theme option for the fighter and require one of them to be a Fighting Style, then it would bring as much to the table as a Cleric choosing their Domain abilities or a Wizard choosing their school abilities.

When I talk about Fighter Cantrips/Style Techniques, more specifically I imagine something like, if they take a style that emphasizes footwork, positioning, and striking when the opponent is vulnerable, as any number of the various schools of fencing or dueling might, then they might get, as examples: (2 assumptions about the following example. 1. As a nimble style, the Fighter would be using a Finesse weapon, likely Rapier.  2. The math and mechanics are purely for illustrative purpose here.)

The Salute - As a Move, you directly challenge and draw the attention of an enemy adjacent to you.  This is considered in effect until the start of your next turn.
Parry - When an enemy you have Saluted  attacks you, as a Reaction you may make a Dex check and add 1/2 of your result to your AC for the purposes of determining whether or not the enemy's attack hits.
Bad Form - If an enemy you have Saluted attacks one of your allies without attacking you or move's away from you without attacking, you may use a Reaction to make a weapon attack against it.

I know those sound and look exactly like 4e fighter Mark powers, but if we're discussing the idea of the Class choices defining how the Fighter works, then it's easiest to work from a simple point of reference.

By tying simple core mechanics or powers to a particular fighting style, and ensuring that EVERY Fighting Style that is an option is properly designed, it allows the Fighter to have a simple core design, but then have their Fighting Style choice define their exact function and role as much as the Cleric's choice of Deity defines their function and role.



It is unlikely that he will ever be a better front line defender (unless they change hit points and AC), but he might be a better defender due to other things.  Probably to early to call on that.



Front line wizard defender: bracers of AC +4/6, shield, mirror image, stone skin, improved invisibility, displacement, fire shield, etc..etc...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

The only thing the fighter class gives at the moment: 1d8 hit die, Weapon Focus, all weapon and armor proficiencies, fighter's surge at level 2, and it appears an extra +1 to attack over the +2 everyone else gets.



On level three he has the most HP (his HD is actuall d12), +6 on attacks and a huge 2d6+8 (expected damage value 15) damage. You also forgot to mention cleave, which combined to low amounts of HP the enemies have, means that on average he probably kills two monsters every round.

Also, given how they seem to be going for the old school thing, fighter is probably going to have multiple attacks per round on higher levels.


Compare this to the wizard who gets: 1d4 hit die, 4 cantrips, spells (3 at level 1, 4 at level 2, and 6 at level 3), spells that use attack rolls AND spells that impose saving throws.

In comparison, the wizard gets quite a bit more than the fighter. The fighter really needs something else to bring it up to par with the rest of the classes in the packet, and that something else should be those combat manuevers they've been talking about. I eagerly await them.



Yeah, the wizard gets different stuff, but is it better? I think not. More diverse? Definitely. But not better or more powerful.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind if they spiced up the fighter up a bit (in fact I'm 100% certain they will), but claiming that the fighter is somehow weaker, based on the playtest materials, is quite simply just untrue.


The rogue needs a bit of help as well, and I would have preferred different spell options on the Cleric of Moradin.



Funny that, I was playing rogue myself and it felt downright overpowered. Guess it all is a matter of perception.



How were you playing the rogue? They deal 1d6 damage with their dagger and at best can only get advantage for sneak attack every other round if you ignore the rules that basically say once you attack out of cover you can't hide again...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I generally play wizards, and not becuase they are more powerful.  I find them more interesting.  Each round I could cast a different spell.

and each wizard or cleric could focus on different spell types, just by picking, or by domains or whatever

4e added that flexibilty to all classes, but I found daily abilities for fighers hard to swallow.

I think fighters, and rogues, and other martial types, do need ways of specalizing, fighting styles (2 -hnded, sword and baord, etc) and maneuvers like trip, disarm, etc.

this lets' 2 fighters be different, and let's a fighter do different things each round.  

 
I too am very interested in adding style to the fighter class. Perhaps not so much as to satisfy the min maxing of the miniatures wargaming crowd but enough to make the combat feel more engaging.

I'm not sure that themes are the best vehicle for delivering more style, or combat maneuvers, to the class, and adding two themes doesn't sound appealing either.

If the designers added 3 or 4 combat maneuvers to the 1st level basic class that would be sufficient enough for me. I think that these should be basic fighting styles that all classes of fighters use, such as rushing, fighting defensively, or pinning an opponent.

If we use modern UFC fighting as a model we can see that just about every fighter has a set of basic maneuvers. In addition most of them are highly skilled at grappling, ground and pound, boxing, kicking, and submission moves. While most UFC fighters are more skilled in one area than another, some are just plain good at most all of them.

So if we model our fighter class on the UFC we can see that we need common fighting maneuvers that everyone knows, and we need schools of fighting styles that the fighter class can learn as they level up.

If you will recall, back in the day when the UFC started out many of the fighters came from different martial art disciplines like Karate and Kung Fu, and it wasn't until later that the multi discipline schools were set up to essentially combine all of the old fighting styles into one super UFC skill set.

In D&D we don't have to have this unified school of fighting, we can still have both combat maneuvers and fighting schools. These would include not only the typical fighting styles such as the militia, guard duty, serving in an army on campaign, as a mercenary, a noble knight, and so forth, but also, fighting styles such as piracy or swashbuckling, and non European styles such as from Japan or China.

So as I see it we need a class with 3 or 4 basic combat maneuvers at 1st, with additional general maneuvers being gained at each level thereafter, and mundane feats gained through a theme that specialize the fighter with a fighting style. So for example you can create a swashbuckling pirate.

I would not like to see any magical abilities for the fighter class, no 4E powers. I also would like to see a simpler more straightforward and comprehensive set of combat maneuvers rather than 2E or 3E rag tag feat system. Something basic, simple, yet comprehensive, and that should be doable with a set of 3 or 4 1st level combat maneuvers.

And last but not least, it isn't for the purpose of making the fighter more useful that I'm suggesting these changes, but rather to add style to the game, to encourage roleplaying. So many times I've read on these forums where somebody is arguing against the playtest rules because they don't spell out that you can do something, such as pin an opponent back. So rather than take the 1E view that this is just part of the story that the player needs to bring to the game, or the 4E view that everything is completely spelled out for you, lets find the basic level at which everyone can have fun with the game without drowning out the creativity of roleplaying spirit.
The cover of the 1st edition Player’s Handbook by artist D.A. Trampier. A motley crew of adventurers, the bloodied bodies of lizard men, the hint of arcane malevolence surrounding the idol, the daring thieves prying the jewels from the statue. This is arguably the most iconic piece of art in all of RPGdom.
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.


Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity



A fighter gives you larger hit dice, and more weapon selection choices, at the expense of neat features.


Wizards have schools, Priests have Domains, we can give Fighters Styles, but what do Rogues get? 
I too am very interested in adding style to the fighter class. Perhaps not so much as to satisfy the min maxing of the miniatures wargaming crowd but enough to make the combat feel more engaging.

I'm not sure that themes are the best vehicle for delivering more style, or combat maneuvers, to the class, and adding two themes doesn't sound appealing either.

If the designers added 3 or 4 combat maneuvers to the 1st level basic class that would be sufficient enough for me. I think that these should be basic fighting styles that all classes of fighters use, such as rushing, fighting defensively, or pinning an opponent.

If we use modern UFC fighting as a model we can see that just about every fighter has a set of basic maneuvers. In addition most of them are highly skilled at grappling, ground and pound, boxing, kicking, and submission moves. While most UFC fighters are more skilled in one area than another, some are just plain good at most all of them.

So if we model our fighter class on the UFC we can see that we need common fighting maneuvers that everyone knows, and we need schools of fighting styles that the fighter class can learn as they level up.

If you will recall, back in the day when the UFC started out many of the fighters came from different martial art disciplines like Karate and Kung Fu, and it wasn't until later that the multi discipline schools were set up to essentially combine all of the old fighting styles into one super UFC skill set.

In D&D we don't have to have this unified school of fighting, we can still have both combat maneuvers and fighting schools. These would include not only the typical fighting styles such as the militia, guard duty, serving in an army on campaign, as a mercenary, a noble knight, and so forth, but also, fighting styles such as piracy or swashbuckling, and non European styles such as from Japan or China.

So as I see it we need a class with 3 or 4 basic combat maneuvers at 1st, with additional general maneuvers being gained at each level thereafter, and mundane feats gained through a theme that specialize the fighter with a fighting style. So for example you can create a swashbuckling pirate.

I would not like to see any magical abilities for the fighter class, no 4E powers. I also would like to see a simpler more straightforward and comprehensive set of combat maneuvers rather than 2E or 3E rag tag feat system. Something basic, simple, yet comprehensive, and that should be doable with a set of 3 or 4 1st level combat maneuvers.

And last but not least, it isn't for the purpose of making the fighter more useful that I'm suggesting these changes, but rather to add style to the game, to encourage roleplaying. So many times I've read on these forums where somebody is arguing against the playtest rules because they don't spell out that you can do something, such as pin an opponent back. So rather than take the 1E view that this is just part of the story that the player needs to bring to the game, or the 4E view that everything is completely spelled out for you, lets find the basic level at which everyone can have fun with the game without drowning out the creativity of roleplaying spirit.




THIS!!!
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
I don't see why not as long as there is something like 'generalist' for wizards that allow an easy and non-restrictive choice that doesn't frusttrate and confuse a new player.
I don't see why not as long as there is something like 'generalist' for wizards that allow an easy and non-restrictive choice that doesn't frusttrate and confuse a new player.



I'm waiting for the magic missile only wizard, the 1d4 heal on a hit cleric (no spells or turning undead), and the rogue that throws sand in the eyes to get an extra 1d4 damage on each attack... how long will I have to wait to be equal to the fighter?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity




The fighter is suppose to actually get 2 themes.



A fighter gives you larger hit dice, and more weapon selection choices, at the expense of neat features.


Wizards have schools, Priests have Domains, we can give Fighters Styles, but what do Rogues get? 



Actually, from what we know, wizards aren't getting schools. If they want to be a necromancer, they need to take the Necromancer theme which can be obtained by any caster class.
That's not a bad idea at all, actually.

However, I think the themes are essentially going to be doing the same thing, i.e. "Slayer" is just one of the (hopefully) many, others giving their own distinct flairs to the fighter. So maybe there is something like a "fencer" or "duelist" theme etc.


Yeah, but what does the FIGHTER CLASS bring to the table alongside Slayer?

NOTHING.

Edit: Clarity



A fighter gives you larger hit dice, and more weapon selection choices, at the expense of neat features.


Wizards have schools, Priests have Domains, we can give Fighters Styles, but what do Rogues get? 



Schemes, apparently. I have no idea what those are. What I think would be interesting is a mix of in-combat and utility techniques that speak to a particular kind of rogue. For example, it would be great if a ninja-themed rogue got say, a smoke bomb they could use to regain hidden status once they've been spotted.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.


Schemes, apparently. I have no idea what those are. What I think would be interesting is a mix of in-combat and utility techniques that speak to a particular kind of rogue. For example, it would be great if a ninja-themed rogue got say, a smoke bomb they could use to regain hidden status once they've been spotted.



Schemes are there to provide rogues with more skills. A ninja-themed rogue would have the Ninja theme.
I would not like to see any magical abilities for the fighter class, no 4E powers.

This false understanding always bothered me. 4e fighter powers weren't spells. "Power" was the generic term, using a common format. I see only profit in using a common format for all actions a player can take.

I also would like to see a simpler more straightforward and comprehensive set of combat maneuvers rather than 2E or 3E rag tag feat system. Something basic, simple, yet comprehensive, and that should be doable with a set of 3 or 4 1st level combat maneuvers.

The 3e "Improved [manuever]" feats aren't a bad starting place, although dropping the whole opportunity attack without the feat nonsense would be a must. All characters can do the maneuvers, but let fighters have combat styles that would give them the +2 bonus on a subset of manuevers (~2-3, not just one). A monk could be a specialized fighter that trades out armor for more mobility, probably using something like "AC=10+DexMod+WisMod", and faster base speed. Maybe give a small AC boost at a later level.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Some school of fight could be about team work, for example a warrior with a great pavise shield, with wheels (and some throwings axes) and a his comrade in arms uses a halberd (or a crossbow, with a optional buckler and a parrying dagger if enemy is near).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

+1 for fighting styles

This is currently at the top of my Next wish list. Two themes seems sort of odd. Relying soley on theme is worse...what if I want to build a fighter defender who is a desert nomad?

Just give me something to think about during combat other then swing so I don't just go into autopilot. 
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium