Let's stop beating around the bush. Make the Warblade a core class now!

310 posts / 0 new
Last post
I get it. For some people the fighter must be as simple as possible. It cannot break the bounds of "realism". It cannot have interesting maneuvers. We can all argue back and forth all day long what we feel the "fighter" should be capable of, but when it comes down to it we all have different hopes, different visions, and different goals for what they are. I (and I suspect many others) will not be satisfied if the maneuvers presented in 5e are little more than glorified basic combat options (such as bill rush, charge, grapple, and trip). I also suspect we will also be unhappy if these maneuvers are available to anyone trough themes.

Well personally I have had enough. Let us split the fighter into two classes. You can keep both the simple fighter and we can get the advanced warblade. The warblade will have special maneuvers both powerful and unique, skill and utility powers to provide an array of non combat options, and even options to eventually perform superhuman exploits. Then, finally, everyone can be happy.
So what the fighter becoems an NPC class or do we just jack his extra attacks up high enough that the rogues stop laughing?
No.  The warblade just doesn't get any help with combat plusses, specialization, and what-have-you.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Sign me up.
Ideally, we shouldn't have to have 'sucky fighter' and 'non-sucky fighter', but if that's the compromise we're stuck with, fair enough.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
So we wont be giving the warblade the ability to specialize in any weapon just as well as a fighter and then change it this time?

good because honestly I'd have prefferred abilities that reward walkign around with a couple different weapon load outs for the WB and SS. 
So we wont be giving the warblade the ability to specialize in any weapon just as well as a fighter and then change it this time?

good because honestly I'd have prefferred abilities that reward walkign around with a couple different weapon load outs for the WB and SS. 



I wouldn't think so.  It's a fighter-only feature (or should be).  Being the best at combat is why they're fighters.  The warblade is a pretender who can do some other things out of combat.  Kinna like a strong rogue who likes to bench press. Tongue Out

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Obviously unfamiliar with the warblade, think of him as being basically being like the original paladin, fighter+.

More HP, better damage, cooler abilities, and it also walked  away with an improved version of the only semi-unique ability the fighter had in 3e. The only downside was that he suffered from MAD, which was the 3e equivalent of ability score preqs.
Are you seriously going to make the same thread like 4 times in three days?
Obviously unfamiliar with the warblade, think of him as being basically being like the original paladin, fighter+.

More HP, better damage, cooler abilities, and it also walked  away with an improved version of the only semi-unique ability the fighter had in 3e. The only downside was that he suffered from MAD, which was the 3e equivalent of ability score preqs.



Nobody cares what it -was-.  If you want a fighter with neato coolio powahz, then he's like a paladin who traded all his stuff in for those neato powers.  No combat bonuses, no specializations, and typical hit points for a fighter class.  And he wouldn'tt do the same damage as he wouldn't get the fighter damage bonus for class.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I get it. For some people the fighter must be as simple as possible. It cannot break the bounds of "realism". It cannot have interesting maneuvers. We can all argue back and forth all day long what we feel the "fighter" should be capable of, but when it comes down to it we all have different hopes, different visions, and different goals for what they are. I (and I suspect many others) will not be satisfied if the maneuvers presented in 5e are little more than glorified basic combat options (such as bill rush, charge, grapple, and trip). I also suspect we will also be unhappy if these maneuvers are available to anyone trough themes.

Well personally I have had enough. Let us split the fighter into two classes. You can keep both the simple fighter and we can get the advanced warblade. The warblade will have special maneuvers both powerful and unique, skill and utility powers to provide an array of non combat options, and even options to eventually perform superhuman exploits. Then, finally, everyone can be happy.



Signed. As long as both are called Fighters. Or if the Simple Fighter's class description is rewritten to reflect that they are not, in fact, the best at fighting/master of martial techniques, etc. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.


Nobody cares what it -was-.  If you want a fighter with neato coolio powahz, then he's like a paladin who traded all his stuff in for those neato powers.  No combat bonuses, no specializations, and typical hit points for a fighter class.  And he wouldn'tt do the same damage as he wouldn't get the fighter damage bonus for class.




So, it's like combaring a 4e slayer with a 4e fighter...guess what...4e fighter was better.

But yes, i aprove this making the real fighter a separated class.
.
.
.
.
I also suggest to give at level 4 to the old-school fighter +50% weight capacity while carrying wizard's lugage (just joking)
I like my Fighter to be a heroic class.

But, as some have mentioned already, if this is the line in the sand then fine.

You can have your simple improv class, the average every-man combatant, a simple Slayer, bounded by what your logic can tell you it's posible, the Fighter that fights and only fights, but fights well.

Meanwhile, I can have my Weaponmaster, a 4e style Fighter/Tome of Battle Warblade, a trained warrior devoted to mastery of martial combat. A specialist of arms and armor, a leader in warfare, who can break his own chains as well as bully his drow captors into submission, and then lead the rest of the prisoners to freedom. I want skills(out of combat utility) and options(martial powers and stances). In short, what everyone else is getting.

I don't want to play a Level 0 class unless everyone else is doing it too.
Yes, this will be satisfactory. I can have a satisfactory martial class with interesting abilities, and grognards can have fun like they used to "Back in the day"...



*Cue folks who will tell you that the more classes there are, the worse the game is*
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
Yes, this will be satisfactory. I can have a satisfactory martial class with interesting abilities, and grognards can have fun like they used to "Back in the day"...



*Cue folks who will tell you that the more classes there are, the worse the game is*


Not exactly that, but it's harder to balance the game with more classes, especially if we go to how some people want it and end up with a bunch of classes that are essentially the same class.(Like having 2-3 Fighter classes just so people don't have to see "having fun" with the boring fighter, and having 9 Paladin classes because "Paladins must be Lawful Good", etc. Ends up there's either no point(Paladin case) or one class is a trap class(boring fighter and mythic fighter))
So what the fighter becoems an NPC class or do we just jack his extra attacks up high enough that the rogues stop laughing?



I thought about this for a while and I have come up with some posible solutions/conclusions. Right now the regular fighter can get +1 to hit and +2 damage at level 1 and an additional +1 damage at every odd level.  The fighter also gets some daily powers in the form of Fighter's Surge. The regular fighter will also get two themes (Or at least that is the current design plans).  The warblade will not get these features, they are the domain of the simple fighter. The warblade will instead have interesting ToB style maneuvers and 4e style skill and utility powers (hopefully with an emphasis on out of combat utility). The only class features that the 3e Warblade had that I really cared about were weapon aptitude and stance mastery, but even those were not necessary in making warblades fun to play.  While the fighters class features are all focused toward combat, the warblade's passive class features could focus on utility because they have active manuevers to help them in combat.

Now the warblade doesnt necessarily have to be balanced against the fighter either.  Instead it should be balanced against the cleric and wizard.  Why? Because those classes are currently the only classes with awesome capabilities (both in and out of combat). Not to mention in the latest Ro3 the devs said they want spells to last the whole adventuring day anyway, so spells basically become encounter powers. Will the warblade end up more powerful than the fighter?  Maybe, but as long as it is balanced with the casters then things are all good.  Many people arguing for the simple fighter said they never had problems with caster classes being overpowered or the lack of fighter utility options.  By that logic, they should not have a problem with warblades being slightly more powerful than fighters or with warblades possessing greater out of combat utility. The devs have also said that balance will not play as much of a role in the design focus of 5e as it did in 4e so why not have a tier 1 non-caster for once? (As long as the imbalance between tier 1 and 5 is not nearly as extreme as it was in 3e)
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.


You know, I think the same thing about this entire board.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.


You know, I think the same thing about this entire board.




its starting to get a bit ridiculous I wouldn't mind as much if they were all from different people but they have mostly been started and fueled by the same like 8 people.  They say the same stuff in every thread, and now they are trying to make it so we have to hop around to multiple threads to try and refute the same things.  The game is getting to be hardly any fun anymore.  At least when it was all in one thread it wasn't as confusing or infuriating.
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.



Sort of..but not really. I started with this thread. Here you can see me giving a suggestion for fighters to have a unique class feature that is not maneuvers in order to help to make fighters truly unique while allowing a fighters to encapsulate a variety of archetypes.  I then create this one here.  In it I actually do not mention fighters at all.  In it I express my worry for all the non fighter classes such as barbarians, rogues, paladins, and monks who will not receive a free bonus theme to compensate for their lack of interesting in combat options.  Next I created this thread because I thought it might be an interesting way to represent the fighter's weapon specialization ability, give the fighter a unique mechanic, and give the fighter interesting combat options all in one go.  Lastly I created the thread you are reeding now.  As you can see each one clearly has a different purpose (although I will agree that some are more similar than others).
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.



Sort of..but not really. I started with this thread. Here you can see me giving a suggestion for fighters to have a unique class feature that is not maneuvers that will help to make fighters truly unique while allowing a fighters to encapsulate a variety of archetypes.  I then create this one here.  In it I actually do not mention fighters at all.  In it I express my worry for all the non fighter classes such as barbarians, rogues, paladins, and monks who will not receive a free bonus theme to compensate for their lack of interesting in combat options.  Next I created this thread because I thought it might be an interesting way to represent the fighter's weapon specialization ability, give the fighter a unique mechanic, and give the fighter interesting combat options all in one go.  Lastly I created the thread you are reeding now.  As you can see each one clearly has a different purpose (although I will agree that some are more similar than others).





It is the same debate starter draped in different clothing.  Even if that wasn't your aim that's what it was the debate just never picked up in some of those places.  This one was a bit more honest in its delivery (as ham fisted as it was) however all of these could have gone into the linear fighters thread where the debate started.  We get it you don't understand why they are putting maneuvers in themes, and because of that lack of understanding you think it isn't going to work or think it is a bad idea that they need some kind of fix for.  I'll try to explain it to you later why you don't need to hammer this topic so much (I really need to sleep right now though).  For now just please stop starting the same debate over and over again by creating new threads.  Keep it all to one thread.  I don't want to have the same debate in like 6 places, and sadly, with the same people (your's aren't the only threads conversing on the subject).  It gets a tad confusing and that's when I lose all semblance of trying to respond cordially.  If you have a few ideas put them in a blog post and link it to the current debate spot.
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.



Yah, it's almost like there's a persistent division of opinion on a crucial topic or something...
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
seriously same topic like 4 times in the past three days.



Yah, it's almost like there's a persistent division of opinion on a crucial topic or something...


I think we can solve it if we yell louder, but I can't find the controls to turn up the volumes on other people's computers.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
For now just please stop starting the same debate over and over again by creating new threads.  Keep it all to one thread.



Yes, because it's so much easier when you have dozens of people all responding simultaneously on a nigh-400 page thread. 

New threads, as long as they represent a distinct subtopic, allow argument to be defined more precisely and subtopics to be addressed separately, which aids in the quality of debate. It's the reason why debates are usually broken into questions and responses grouped around topics, as opposed to having a couple dozen people all talking at the same time about anything that pops into their heads.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I'm all for interesting manouvres, just not ridiculous ones.  I'm also a little worried by the prospect of fighters being given some cool tactical nounce that aren't available, at least in some semi-equivalent way, to other martial classes like rangers, paladins and barbarians.  If anything I would have thought that bvarbarians should get the same, just more focussed on offence as opposed to defence (i.e fighters with heavy armour and shields)
I'm also a little worried by the prospect of fighters being given some cool tactical nounce that aren't available, at least in some semi-equivalent way, to other martial classes like rangers, paladins and barbarians.  If anything I would have thought that bvarbarians should get the same, just more focussed on offence as opposed to defence (i.e fighters with heavy armour and shields)



What's wrong with that? Fighters spend years and years doing nothing but training in and using martial techniques; they're professional military. Other martial classes spend significant amounts of time doing other things. Rangers learn how to track, they learn the geography of their wilderness areas, they learn the flora and fauna, they learn how to survive in the wild, etc. Paladins spend a big part of their time learning theology and practice of their religions and praying/meditating to gain the spiritual connection/purity they need to tap into the divine. Barbarians spend a lot of time going through rituals that allow them to fly into their beserk rages, and they're described explicitly as not being well-disciplined, heavily-trained fighters.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.

Yah, it's almost like there's a persistent division of opinion on a crucial topic or something...



Is there really a debate on any of this? I thought an overwhelming majority of D&D players want fighters that can actually do something a bit more interesting than "full attack".

The means of delivering these options really is a technical detail.
Is there really a debate on any of this? I thought an overwhelming majority of D&D players want fighters that can actually do something a bit more interesting than "full attack".

The means of delivering these options really is a technical detail.


You're underestimating our ability to endlessly bicker, I'm afraid.  
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Doesn't Gilberts idea allow for both options, the GM would just have to rule out any stance he disliked
community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/... 

Yah, it's almost like there's a persistent division of opinion on a crucial topic or something...



Is there really a debate on any of this? I thought an overwhelming majority of D&D players want fighters that can actually do something a bit more interesting than "full attack".

The means of delivering these options really is a technical detail.



Yes and no. A large majority of those surveyed during the playtests want fighters who can do more than "full attack." (Keep in mind, internet forums are absolutely the wrong place to look for numbers on either side) However, if you peruse some of the threads that came out before we learned about the theme-maneuvers, module-maneuvers, and fighter class mechanic, there were plenty of folks arguing for keeping the "simple" fighter, and some of them arguing for it as the only option. 

However, even within the majority who want more than "full attack," there's a substantial debate over how much more interesting the fighter can get. To some, Tome of Battle-levels of interestingness are unacceptable for reasons of aesthetics or their personal suspension of disbelief. To others, Tome of Battle is just right; still other might want something even more than that.

The debate gets especially complicated when we start to talk about high levels, where there is even deeper division about what the Fighter class should be capable of. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.

What's wrong with that? Fighters spend years and years doing nothing but training in and using martial techniques; they're professional military. Other martial classes spend significant amounts of time doing other things. Rangers learn how to track, they learn the geography of their wilderness areas, they learn the flora and fauna, they learn how to survive in the wild, etc. Paladins spend a big part of their time learning theology and practice of their religions and praying/meditating to gain the spiritual connection/purity they need to tap into the divine. Barbarians spend a lot of time going through rituals that allow them to fly into their beserk rages, and they're described explicitly as not being well-disciplined, heavily-trained fighters.



Experienced fighters do this, however I don't see why they have complete mastery of martial manouvres, where a ranger gets a bit better at tracking............

I'm not asking for equity.  I believe in a semblance of balance across the pillars, but what I'm getting is that say at level 20 if a fighter has 10 manouvres, can't a ranger have say 5 or 6?  I don't buy for a minute any argument that might suggest that a fighter should be any more effective at combat than a barbarian.  Different sure, better, no.

I've been arguing for keeping it all in one class, just split up among three Fighting Styles (plain, improv, and maneuver). If they must be separate classes, though, I would prefer for the 'warblade' to be called Kensei (sword saint) and the 'swordsage' to be called Sennin (sage). These terms have greater connection to literary or historical archetype (a necessary element for 5e classes, allegedly), just not a Western one.
So we wont be giving the warblade the ability to specialize in any weapon just as well as a fighter and then change it this time?

good because honestly I'd have prefferred abilities that reward walkign around with a couple different weapon load outs for the WB and SS. 



The warblade won't get the bonuses to hit that the fighter gets as it levels, either.  Warblades will have a lot more to do and deal more damage when they hit, but will hit a lot less often so it balances out.
Yes, this will be satisfactory. I can have a satisfactory martial class with interesting abilities, and grognards can have fun like they used to "Back in the day"...



*Cue folks who will tell you that the more classes there are, the worse the game is*


Not exactly that, but it's harder to balance the game with more classes, especially if we go to how some people want it and end up with a bunch of classes that are essentially the same class.(Like having 2-3 Fighter classes just so people don't have to see "having fun" with the boring fighter, and having 9 Paladin classes because "Paladins must be Lawful Good", etc. Ends up there's either no point(Paladin case) or one class is a trap class(boring fighter and mythic fighter))


Just because something is hard to do is no reason not to try to do it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
From my side I'd like the Warblade kill the fighter and take his stuff.

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

Ideally, we shouldn't have to have 'sucky fighter' and 'non-sucky fighter', but if that's the compromise we're stuck with, fair enough.



I know but there is a group of players that want the anime fighter with wuxia moves so we are stuck.  I'd be happy to keep just the awesome fighter from pre-4e era's but others just want something different.  Tongue Out
We could have optional class features for the fighter that way people who want simple fighters can have their simple fighter or their complex one or anything inbetween without too many classes.
@Vulgair
I don't mind this except that these options need to be very componentized so that DMs can exclude or include them without much muss.  I don't want to have to hand out a sheet with 50 banned feats on it.

 
@Vulgair
I don't mind this except that these options need to be very componentized so that DMs can exclude or include them without much muss.  I don't want to have to hand out a sheet with 50 banned feats on it.

 



That's exactly what I was going for being able to make the fighter you want without having to spend hours to do so.
Having the option to have maneuvers, skill powers, and the ability to perform superhuman feats of strength and skill cannot be "an option". Too many people have said those things should go nowhere near the fighter unless they are provided by themes. I suggested having such things as fighter options many a time but every time a few people just would not have it.

Emerikol, I would not mind of the option existed to recreate a mythic hero like Beowulf (or as some people say anime/wuxia) take a good look at the warblade's capabilities. They are a far way off of being anything superhuman.
Having the option to have maneuvers, skill powers, and the ability to perform superhuman feats of strength and skill cannot be "an option". Too many people have said those things should go nowhere near the fighter unless they are provided by themes. I suggested having such things as fighter options many a time but every time a few people just would not have it. Emerikol, I would not mind of the option existed to recreate a mythic hero like Beowulf (or as some people say anime/wuxia) take a good look at the warblade's capabilities. They are a far way off of being anything superhuman.



But if it is "an option" can't they just ban that option and be happy?