Fighter and melee in general back to second fiddle generic I attack gaming.

One thing I did enjoy out of 4e.  The Fighter and other melee characters had something more to do than, I attack such and such.  And they had abilities that put them comparable to Wizards and other casters.  Now longer playing a sword and shield warrior you felt like just a meat shield.

Even with the tweeks to the Fighter it seems the Fighter and melee has fallen back to that old secondary, and dull role again.  

Especially in games level 10 or higher in older editions, playing a Fighter you really end up essentially being relgated to what is almost a henchman type role compared to the players who role Wizards or clerics.  

D&D Next still seems to be a reversion to that position for melee characters.  And that isn't an improvement, that is a negative.  
One thing I did enjoy out of 4e.  The Fighter and other melee characters had something more to do than, I attack such and such.  And they had abilities that put them comparable to Wizards and other casters.  Now longer playing a sword and shield warrior you felt like just a meat shield.

Even with the tweeks to the Fighter it seems the Fighter and melee has fallen back to that old secondary, and dull role again.  

Especially in games level 10 or higher in older editions, playing a Fighter you really end up essentially being relgated to what is almost a henchman type role compared to the players who role Wizards or clerics.  

D&D Next still seems to be a reversion to that position for melee characters.  And that isn't an improvement, that is a negative.  



Oddly enough, you're going to get alot of people who like this basic attack style. As I agree with you, I'll let them explain their positions on it.


Oddly enough, you're going to get alot of people who like this basic attack style. As I agree with you, I'll let them explain their positions on it.



There is nothing wrong with a basic default core attack.   But it is so vanilla, even with the very few, abilities they do give that it is a huge reversion back to the mistakes of the older editions.  

I don't want every single attak defined.  But there needs to be a lot more to them than this, or they will once again fall back to that secondary role as levels go up like in the older editions.  

Seems they are trying too hard to go back to the older editions, they have forgotten or ignored the problems with the older editions that the newer ones changed or improved. 

4e was the only edition where playing  Fighter I felt at any level my character was as important or powerful as everyone elses.  That there was more to the character than, 'I swing my weapon at X."

And now were going back to that it seems.

Thanks though.  Glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.  

The fighter will be much more than that with all of the options for Combat Superiority and Improvisation.  At first level, a fighter can attack and add damage or parry to gain DR.  That's choice.   The fighter can do anything he can think of using improv.  He can tip over stuff...throw stuff...try to grab and throw a creature, try to hold a creature so it can't move, try to push a creature off a ledge, he can aid someone in another action, he can Dodge instead of attacking, not to mention some of the specialties like protecting an ally, firing an arrow with the possibliity to completely negate cover, etc.

For many players, all fighters did in 4e was attack.   4e just gave them 3 or 4 buttons to press to make a slightly different kind of attack.  In 5e, there are still buttons to press, but there is also the idea that a fighter is not bound or limited by the buttons.   So far in the playtest, I've found that it is easier for me to encourage my players to think out of the box, and more like their characters, and using attribute rolls, skill rolls, abilities, attack rolls, all flows fluidly to help me allow them to do what they want to do.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Isn't that the point of CS?  I can totally see so much fun and flexibility coming out of the CS system.  Just needs more added to it I think. 
My last game the Fighter choked an Orc to death with a chain to keep him from calling for help. Later he threw the halfling rogue as an attack. That's not including CS, which he also enjoyed. Maybe the problem is that he's married to his weapon. The Fighter is to using things to cause damage as the Rogue is to skills. Try disarming him for a bit and see if he doesn't get more creative.
Isn't that the point of CS?  I can totally see so much fun and flexibility coming out of the CS system.  Just needs more added to it I think. 



This issue with the CS system is that it's 'all spelled out', meaning a lot of people will fall into the same trap that a lot of 4e players fall into.  "If it's not on the character sheet, then it's not possible to do."  Even with the 'improvisation' ability in the playtest, you will find that a lot of players will instinctively not look at anything other than their sheet.

Personally, on my next playtest I want to try allowing all the players to use the CS stuff, but they roll at Disadvantage, except when you actually HAVE the ability.

Level 2 Fighter or Rogue wants to Cleave?  SURE!  But you get Disadvantage on it.  Level 3 Slayer Fighter wants to Cleave?  Roll as normal.

Not to mention allowing 'Improvisation' to do DAMAGE.  You want your Rogue to garrotte the Goblin Guard with his own belt (yay pick pocket!) so he doesn't scream an alarm? (BREE-YARK!) Go for it, I'll even allow Sneak Attack on it.
Isn't that the point of CS?  I can totally see so much fun and flexibility coming out of the CS system.  Just needs more added to it I think. 



This issue with the CS system is that it's 'all spelled out', meaning a lot of people will fall into the same trap that a lot of 4e players fall into.  "If it's not on the character sheet, then it's not possible to do."  Even with the 'improvisation' ability in the playtest, you will find that a lot of players will instinctively not look at anything other than their sheet.

Personally, on my next playtest I want to try allowing all the players to use the CS stuff, but they roll at Disadvantage, except when you actually HAVE the ability.

Level 2 Fighter or Rogue wants to Cleave?  SURE!  But you get Disadvantage on it.  Level 3 Slayer Fighter wants to Cleave?  Roll as normal.

Not to mention allowing 'Improvisation' to do DAMAGE.  You want your Rogue to garrotte the Goblin Guard with his own belt (yay pick pocket!) so he doesn't scream an alarm? (BREE-YARK!) Go for it, I'll even allow Sneak Attack on it.



Sounds interesting.  I like it.  I'm always a big proponent of letting people use their imagination.  Limiting to what you see on paper can get boring. 
The thing that gets me is that people tout Improvisation as the answer to the Fighter's boringness....but any class can improvise. So, how does that solve the Fighter's boringness again? If, ya know, everybody can do it....

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it. In the next packet we will get the narrative modular to test everyone having access to maneuvers. At that point we will be testing that style of play. And then we will test the tactical module and that style of play. Trying to make one of these into the others because you personally don't want to play the style that is presented is not really helpful to the whole?

No single way to play is going to be right or fun for everyone, but that is one of the great things about 5th! It's going to be modular, so you can add those options. but they should still remain options so that others can play the way they want as well.

So bane we are testing the theatre of the mind play style and not the narrative play style we should all try to use our improvisational skills to give it a chance. Who knows when you stop trying to make it into something it's not supposed to be you may find, like many of us, that there is a fun game to be found.

Improvise and shake off the shackles of 8 years of playing in a fully codified system, and give it a spin. If its not for you then give the narrative modular a spin, but don't try to make theI theatre of the mindmules into the narrative module. 
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal. Red
Improvisation itself turns rote pretty quickly. If a fighter player realizes that he does more to impact the combat if he does something creative, he'll start repeating whatever creative 'maneuver' works best. Suddenly, aiming for the legs/eyes/groin or throwing a crate or making a terrifying war cry becomes the go-to technique rather than an improvisation, and the player will get annoyed if the DM stops allowing it or makes it less effective. 
So I just reread this thread and I'm having a hard time figuring out what people want out of the Fighter. People want him to have more options than to just hit thing's faces, but CS is too stiff? What's the middleground? Also, I like the idea of letting others use the CSs at disadvantage, or having to pass a check, but I think that that is already covered loosely in the packet. 
One thing I did enjoy out of 4e.  The Fighter and other melee characters had something more to do than, I attack such and such.  And they had abilities that put them comparable to Wizards and other casters.  Now longer playing a sword and shield warrior you felt like just a meat shield.

Even with the tweeks to the Fighter it seems the Fighter and melee has fallen back to that old secondary, and dull role again.  

Especially in games level 10 or higher in older editions, playing a Fighter you really end up essentially being relgated to what is almost a henchman type role compared to the players who role Wizards or clerics.  

D&D Next still seems to be a reversion to that position for melee characters.  And that isn't an improvement, that is a negative.  

Daron_Halder, would this make the fighter more interesting to play?

Give them 5 manuvers and two d4 expertise dice at first level, and ramp it up from there.

I firmly believe that manuvers and ex dice are a good idea, but they need to be kicked up a notch or three.
 Daron_Halder, would this make the fighter more interesting to play?

Give them 5 manuvers and two d4 expertise dice at first level, and ramp it up from there.

I firmly believe that manuvers and ex dice are a good idea, but they need to be kicked up a notch or three.



That would certainly help.  

Fighting styles are defined by their maneuvers, but right now there’s not a lot of difference at 1st level, and the result is a fighter that’s still vanilla and boring.



I think that sums up my feeling on it.  

I think there should be a combination of a number of defined maneuvers and things like Combat Superiority and Improvisation, but as said above, the improvisation can lead to problems also.   Player: "I stab him in the eye."  That worked so well, next fight, and the next fight, and the next fight.   You want room for creativity, but you also want somethings defined.  



For many players, all fighters did in 4e was attack.   4e just gave them 3 or 4 buttons to press to make a slightly different kind of attack. 



That isn't just a player problem, but can be a GM problem also.  They aren't willing to come up with rules on the fly and limit it only to what is written.   Or aren't willing to see and let melee share in the spotlight like casters.
 
For example:
The players bust open a door and there is a room full of orcs.  

The mage goes first casts a fireball and kills or hurts many of them.

Now what if it was the fighter to go first:

The Fighter chooses to improve and dash in and swing his sword around in a flurry of quick blows to a group of foes.  How many DMs are going to give him the equivalent of say a fireball attack with that improv, at least to those in his range?

That was one thing I liked about 4e with their blast, and burst, etc skills.  Everyone got them.  And everyone was on equal footing with how powerful they could be.  And everyone could be have their moment to shine with them.  

But without that defined balance I see Fighters going back to that secondary role in many campaigns if they don't have the right GM or players. 


And as said above by someone else, Improv isn't just a Fighter ability to do.   So it isn't making them any more unique.   Or making melee any more interesting.

If everyone is given improve, why can't we also have a list of set of well defined abilities and maneauvers also?   How does that hurt?


And maybe this group wants to have more defined attacks and doesn't like improv.  Maybe this other group likes to constantly improve.   But first group is going to be the one lacking, not the second. 

Wizards have a huge list of spells to use, change around from their spell book, AND improv.    So why can't Fighters also?  Or Rogues?  Or any of the classes?    As I said, it seems creative ability lists melee gets the short end again as opposed to 4e where everyone was on the same footing. 

I agree that part of what I didn't like in 4e is you really had to limit what you picked to use, and had to use them over and over.   I wanted more flexibility to use other skills.   I liked many of the skill abilities you got to choose from and how they were written out.  I just didn't like how few you could do.


So far in the playtest, I've found that it is easier for me to encourage my players to think out of the box, and more like their characters, and using attribute rolls, skill rolls, abilities, attack rolls, all flows fluidly to help me allow them to do what they want to do.




That is great.  But I think may be you need to get out of your group for a few playtests, and see what others are doing and handling them and the problems that are arising.   Not everyone GMs or plays the same way, and to really test I think we need to experience more than our core play groups.    That's why I've been going to open sessions at local hobby shops with different groups for short sessions. 

I went to a lot of different ecounters sessions, so I have played with countless different GMs and players.  And it is a wake up to how different games are run rather than your set home sessions. 




 
This issue with the CS system is that it's 'all spelled out', meaning a lot of people will fall into the same trap that a lot of 4e players fall into.  "If it's not on the character sheet, then it's not possible to do."  Even with the 'improvisation' ability in the playtest, you will find that a lot of players will instinctively not look at anything other than their sheet.



The trick is to spell out improvisation within the CS system, by allowing Fighters to Improv. (with things like Disarm, Sunder, Feint, etc. spelled out as examples) and make a regular attack, so that the Fighter doesn't have to give up almost all damage in their turn. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I got into two play tests at gen con and got my free dice. Thats about all I can say positive for D&D Next. I played D&D 3.0 the day it came out, ran it for years well into 3.5.

I for one adore 4th edition, it has its issues but those can be solved if Wizards wanted to release a 4.5. Frankly nothing about D&D Next Appeals to me. Its clunky and unrefined, it tries to marry too many different play styles and concepts under one roof. In the end, it wont bring back any old players; Paizo is taking care of your 3.5 crowd (very well might I add). As my heart I prefer 4e content to 3.5/pathfinder because combat is not borring. You can say manuevers, but in the end characters come down to attacks and spamming one manuever over and over unless they are a spell caster. 4e gave melee interesting things to do, and gave them decisions that only spell casters used to know. It was hyper balanced and does everything well in an easy to understand system. If the idea of fighers with dailies was too much for anyone, Essentials more or less solved that.

Frankly I hope they just wise up and fix 4e. It be simple really.

Relaunch it with a focus on Essentials esq game design, non spell casters getting at wills/encounters, hybrids (paladins, bards, etc) focusing more on encounters and some dailies, and full blown spell casters being more back loaded on the daily front.

Then..expand your non combat options, build it into each class and give them choices as they level up for permanent abilities and effects. 4e also suffered in that your 'kit' just replaced itself, where as in a Pathfinder or 3.5 you are building a set of features which is more satisfying.

Basically take the combat of 4e and the class design of 3e and combine them for a lovely union..instead of going and taking 2e, 3e and 4e elements and forcing them together in the same areas (combat, skills, etc).

Also the rogue thing with attributes and skills is terribly clunky.  
So I just reread this thread and I'm having a hard time figuring out what people want out of the Fighter. People want him to have more options than to just hit thing's faces, but CS is too stiff? What's the middleground? Also, I like the idea of letting others use the CSs at disadvantage, or having to pass a check, but I think that that is already covered loosely in the packet. 



Most probably won't be happy til Fighter's can use things like "Heroic Blade Strike" as an at-will that does 1[w] + str mod damage and pushes the target back 2 squa-- I mean, 20 feet. 

I'll go back to lurking now.
Personally I'm happy about this.

Everyone having a wide plethora of powers to choose from for every given attack, all having different damage and types of effects...especially movement effects....massively slow down combat in my games to an excrutiating degree. It reduced immersion as it became a more tactical based game where every sqaure and movement and ability effect was painstakingly agonized over. And due to every attack seemingly being somehwat special, nothing felt massively special to me in the end.

I do think there is a happy middle ground between the combat feats of 3e that often had convoluted and time consuming rules or required far too much investment beyond even the standard fighter bonus feats to really get use from it....and the "every attack is special in some way" of the 4e fighter.

I do think the CS dice system sets it up nicely. Already, at first level, you have the option of do more damage, protect from damage, or do X combat manuever. As you level up it seems you're going to be getting more and more manuevers to add to your arsenal. My only real qualms at this point is that I would like to see dice size reduced a bit but more dice added sooner. Something like a D6 at level one still....but then 2d4 at 2nd through 3rd, and then 2d6 at 5th. Or something like that. That way a fighter is quickly getting to the point where he has options in combat and can either load up one way or another, do a few manuevers, or find a middle ground. I also like that CS dice are maxed on a crit, providing for the chance for the massive large hit.

I do think they're going in the right direction. Could it use tweaking? Absolutely. Perhaps one of the initial tweaks would be to come up with perhaps 3 or 4 more "base" manuevers that every fighter has, and then build the combat styles starting at level 3 off of those base manuevers. But I do think it's the nice middle ground where combat goes smoother becuase most attacks are a standard attack (with some extra damage given or reduced) but has enough manuevers to keep it interesting.

I think it's difficult to wager what it's going to look like above level 5 because we just can't see that right now.
I always found it funny that they filled up hundreds of pages in older editions with intricate spell descriptions, yet the sum total of melee attack options could be had for a couple of paragraphs and a weapons table.  And if you had an interest in tactical complexity you'd always want to play a bookish scholar or holy man rather than a veteran warrior.
I always found it funny that they filled up hundreds of pages in older editions with intricate spell descriptions, yet the sum total of melee attack options could be had for a couple of paragraphs and a weapons table.  And if you had an interest in tactical complexity you'd always want to play a bookish scholar or holy man rather than a veteran warrior.

4E changed all that wonderfully.

Of course, not everyone liked the changes.

I think 5E has gone a bit in the right direction with these Expertise Dice without sacrificing ease of play and smooth, clean combat encounters.  It'll be nice to see how much further they take it in advancing levels. 

That was one thing I liked about 4e with their blast, and burst, etc skills.  Everyone got them.  And everyone was on equal footing with how powerful they could be.  And everyone could be have their moment to shine with them. 


That's not balance; that's sameness. Or as Jeremy Crawford put it at GenCon, symmetry, the "worst" kind of balance:


that kind of balance, at its worst, makes everything identical. And you’ll see this sometimes in games, where it’s like, “Well, the name of what my wizard is doing is different from the name of what the fighter is doing, but if I look at the effects, they’re exactly the same thing.”



That was 4E. I was a wizard with a staff, you were a wizard with a sword, the thief was a wizard with a dagger, etc. Sure everyone was balanced; because everyone was the same.

D&D Next has some ways to go before it hits the nail on the head concerning balance, but I'll take slight imbalance with novelty any day over extreme balance with sameness.

I always found it funny that they filled up hundreds of pages in older editions with intricate spell descriptions, yet the sum total of melee attack options could be had for a couple of paragraphs and a weapons table..

4E changed all that wonderfully.


... by exchanging hundreds of pages of spells with hundreds of pages of Powers. Ugh.

... by exchanging hundreds of pages of spells with hundreds of pages of Powers. Ugh.

Ugh? :P

Yes, it was ... heavy on the mechanics... but from just a literal class balance perspective, it does what it does wonderfully.

Don't get me wrong, I am loving the clean, consistant flow that is coming with Next and don't want a rules heavy game where the mechanics of play are much greater than the roles in play.  If I want that, I'll just go back to 4E. 

It's one of the reasons (parish the thought) why I really, really like what they are doing with Next/5E, fighters included.

In fact, with the Expertise Dice, I see them as having more options than your average Cleric or Wizard, and it's so elegantly simple, it's wonderful! 

How can I claim that?  Here's how...

Cleric:  Chooses a few options ... but what does he do the entire adventure... cast Cure Light Wounds, generic attack, or Radiant Lance.  Two spells.  Because healing is too important.

Wizard: Chooses from a few spells... but what do they do for most the adventure?  Magic Missile.  Why?  Because they have to save the big splash spells (Sleep, Burning Hands) for critical moments, and maybe they kept some utility spells or defensive spells on hand, too.

Oh, and Rogue?  She's still trying to get into Advantage becaues there's not much else for her.

Now the Fighter... ohhh.. they have all the fun!  EVERY ROUND, they get options.  Attack with more force... save for damage deflection, save to protect others or get a glancing blow in or cut through enemies or ignore cover....  Every freakin' round, I tell you.

I love the new fighter.  I'm going to love to see those styles expand.... and to see new styles added (2-Handed specialist, please!).

I think it's a great day to be a fighter... they come in so many shapes and sizes now, styles and roles... and it should only get better. 

That's not balance; that's sameness.



That is simplistic given the variety of effects of bursts.  It wasn't just damage. 


I'll take slight imbalance with novelty any day over extreme balance with sameness.




So your'd rather a major segement of the game be inferior than balanced.   I'd rather have all my players be able to play a character that they can all have just as much fun and ability to take the spot light.   If that means some sameness, so be it.  Better than some being unsatisfied and left as a second fiddle character or meat shield for the others that do matter. 


So your'd rather a major segement of the game be inferior than balanced.  



The last thing I want in my D&D is 4e style balance.


So your'd rather a major segement of the game be inferior than balanced.  



The last thing I want in my D&D is 4e style balance.



It was far better than 1e, 2e, 3e kind of balance.   Where Fighters were essentially henchmen by level 7 compared to casters.

The problem with 4e wasn't the abilities, it was how restrictive it was in using them and how many you could do, and how table top focused it became.  It was more a minatures wargame than an RPG.  

And again, I think the sameness claim is completely simplistic given the different feel, and types of effects.  


But hey screw the melees, so what if they get a few abilities that don't match up, and are second fiddle agian, this is magic fantasy, not sword and sorcery fantasy... oh wait.






I'll take slight imbalance with novelty any day over extreme balance with sameness.




So your'd rather a major segement of the game be inferior than balanced.  


Wow, you're right, that DOES sound unreasonable. But oh, wait, that isn't what I said. You've just mischaracterized my statement

If you listen to anything the devs have said about PC balance, they have said that they are working towards creating it as much as they can, while still maintaining class uniqueness. What *I* said was, therefore, I would be satisfied with "slight imbalance" if that meant preserving flavor. In other words, I prefer novelty over sameness when it comes to erring on one side or the other of balance. 


The last thing I want in my D&D is 4e style balance.


QFT. 

The last thing I want in my D&D is 4e style balance.



This.
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it.



Then why do casters get huge specialized sections of the book all to themselves, filled with specific, concise rules?
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)


If you listen to anything the devs have said about PC balance, they have said that they are working towards creating it as much as they can, while still maintaining class uniqueness. What *I* said was, therefore, I would be satisfied with "slight imbalance" if that meant preserving flavor. In other words, I prefer novelty over sameness when it comes to erring on one side or the other of balance. 




And I never said we should copy 4e.  I just cited it as being balanced, and that the current system for D&D Next is not balanced, and takes us back to the problems before 4e.   Again that doesn't mean I want 4e.  Although the mischaracterization assertion stands.

There is room for adding skills and powers for Fighters or melee without just making it a carbon copy.  But that hasn't happened, and there needs to be some serious thought to refreshing how melee works to make it more balanced and interesting.   Right now I'm not see that.  



4e had the fighter in the defender role, which really reduced the offensive output.  The fighters felt like they were back in their own skin now, and the latest playtest gives them some nice options.  I would also like to see a system that allowed more imagination, such as "you can try that special maneuver you just thought of"  with a mechanic that allowed it, such as doing it at a disadvantage if you're untrained.
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it.



Then why do casters get huge specialized sections of the book all to themselves, filled with specific, concise rules?



Because building a balanced magic system that focuses on improvisation creates a completely different game. If someone wants that, they can play with the white-wolf system for magic.

It's VERY difficult to pull that off for magic and keep it balanced with fighters and rogues.  Hell, it's hard enough to balance with the vancian spell system.
I think one problem is that a level one in 4the Ed got so much to do rigTT off the bat. 2-3 at wills, an encounter, and a daily, plus the marking mechanic with bonus to Aoo and stoping movement.  Throw in the ability to action point and takew reaction powers, and you have alot going on at first level. Now, at level one, it's parry/extra damage/one other ability, and you can only activate one a turn. However, at higher level, when you have multiple action dice and abilities to chose from it will feel different. 

Phone thing to remember is in4th Ed, you would run out of powers and be stuck with two at wills, and that's it. Here, at third level, you will 4 abilities, and two action dice (two chances to use your abilities in a turn, or once with a big boost) and this will be for every turn.

I thought the fighter was fun in play test, and I just did the more boring slayer. Next time I will try a dual wielding dualist elf. 
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it.



Then why do casters get huge specialized sections of the book all to themselves, filled with specific, concise rules?



Because building a balanced magic system that focuses on improvisation creates a completely different game. If someone wants that, they can play with the white-wolf system for magic.



Apparently they wanted this playtest to be about improvisation. If only half the classes are actually about improvising, they have failed at their goal. They apparently did not even attempt a different magic system. This makes me question if "they wanted this playtest to be about improvisation, which is why the Fighter gets so little!" is just the excuse of those who can't bare to part with their old-style casters and their pages upon pages of content, and can't stand the thought of the martial classes getting as much attention.

As for it "create[ing] a completely different game", how do you know that? How do you know that a system that is looser (I never expected them to make it totally free-form, just as martial abilities should not) couldn't be made similar to D&D? Do you think it can't because the devs didn't even try? I mean, we are already apparently giving the Fighter a system that was never used in any edition of D&D before. They didn't even attempt to give them something akin to Essentials Fighters (As the devs seem to keep forgeting, 4E is an edition of D&D! You can use stuff from it too!), so new systems don't seem to be off the table. So what exactly is the reason?

It's VERY difficult to pull that off for magic and keep it balanced with fighters and rogues.  Hell, it's hard enough to balance with the vancian spell system.



Just look at what you typed here. Isn't this something we should DEAL WITH? Vancian is hard to balance with martials. Apparently, a more loose spell system is hard to balance with martials. Does this seriously tell us NOTHING? Doesn't it seem to say that perhaps we should reevaluate the martials FIRST, since we are apparently having trouble balancing them with ANY sort of casters? Even as they add new things to them, it feels more and more like the martial classes are being pushed to the wayside to (hopefully) be dealt with later, cause OOOOOOO LET'S MAKE SOME NEW CASTER STUFF OH YEAH SO COOL!
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Just look at what you typed here. Isn't this something we should DEAL WITH? Vancian is hard to balance with martials. Apparently, a more loose spell system is hard to balance with martials. Does this seriously tell us NOTHING? Doesn't it seem to say that perhaps we should reevaluate the martials FIRST, since we are apparently having trouble balancing them with ANY sort of casters? Even as they add new things to them, it feels more and more like the martial classes are being pushed to the wayside to (hopefully) be dealt with later, cause OOOOOOO LET'S MAKE SOME NEW CASTER STUFF OH YEAH SO COOL!



The interesting thing is that you say this, but until the release of the sorc and wizards, they didn't really add much to casters. They toned down a couple things here and there (especially on clerics), but overall they didn't add a lot of spells, they didn't add a bunch of new mechanics.

Both the rogue and the fighter got MOST of the attention with the 2nd release. (3rd release being sorcs/warlocks) And the changes they added to them definitely helped bring them closer to where they should be imho. They're working on that balance and working on it hard. Fighters can still out DPS a warlock if they try (and are the 2-hander style fighter). That says something because those locks are beastly. They can even do it EVERY ROUND if they want. If they want to taper it down a hair to do something else, like get a second attack when they finish off a creature, or deal damage even though they missed, or just absorb some punishment, that's an option too. In addition, they brought back something that was lacking DIRELY in 4th edition... a pure fighter archer. Tricks that can make you one hell of an archer without having to resort to rolling a ranger (once they are released).

They also did a few things to help the rogue, including raise the damage for their SA at level 1 to keep them dangerous, and add even more strength to their already phenomenal ability with skills.

Now look at what they've done to Vancian Wizards...   The spells no longer scale with level, and this removes a LOT of the quadratic power gain problem that wizards used to have. Wizards are able to do short bursts of GREAT control or damage to a group, but are paper thin. This is a standing rule for wizards, of course, but it reinforces that balance. The strongest wizard spells aren't fireball, it's spells like sleep, grease, etc. Stuff that controls the enemies to put the heroes at an advantage. The wizard has to be paper thin to be able to justify that kind of battle-field control. Incidently, I believe this is why the sorcerer doesn't get control spells. If builds are going to be as powerful as the Dragon Sorcerer overall, then they need to severely limit the arcane spell options. Perhaps open it up for weaker styles of Sorcerer (like wild mages or storm mages)... Just expand their spell list.

Just saying, it's not like they haven't done their homework... It's not like they aren't working on it... It's not like they aren't exploring multiple options. From what they've said, they expect the Beta to be about 2 years in the making before they're ready for release if things continue to progress as they are right now. This should show their dedication to getting it right.
I think the Fighter could use more basic CS maneuvers available from level one, and untied from any of the fighting styles.

In fact, I would rather have the weapon styles give flat, one time bonuses (like a tiny damage bonus, whenever using their preferred style, maybe +2, or something) and let the Fighter have all the maneuvers straight out of the box.

Or something. 
The last thing I want in my D&D is 4e style balance.



Why?

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
That was 4E. I was a wizard with a staff, you were a wizard with a sword, the thief was a wizard with a dagger, etc. Sure everyone was balanced; because everyone was the same.



But....everybody was not the same. Not even close.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.