Ideas for differentiating the Fighter

Heeeeey guuuuuuys!

This may be an excerise in futility but I was thinking about the fighter and how it is losing part of its identity with the addition of the rogue and monk both using expertise dice. Sure it has different maneuvers, but for the most part the maneuvers emulate or are different versions of what other classes have. I'd hate for the fighter to turn into the 3.x fighter, where it is essentially a ball of feats.

So I was curious as to what ideas people had to differentiate the fighter, if you think it needs to be differentiated. 

Spew forth!


I have one very conceptual idea, working off the assumption that fighters are masters of arms and armor. 

Idea: Allow fighters to expend expertise dice while weilding weapons of certain groups to add effects to their attacks. 
           
             Rough Examples include:

             Flails could allow for expending a die could allow a fighter to disarm while attacking, or, if that is too powerful, allow expertise dice to be          
             added to disarm attempts. 

             Hammers could allow for expending a die to push an opponent as part of an attack or allow for a single die to be added to a Push
             contest. 

             Light Armor could allow for expending any number of expertise dice to add that to the distance of a disengage action or to escape a grab.

             Medium Armor could allow for expending any number of expertise dice to opposing checks when being knocked down, grabbed or pushed.

             Heavy Armor could allow for expending any number of expertise dice to opposing checks when being disarmed, pushed or knocked down.

Those are just some ideas.

What other ideas do you guys have for differentiating the fighter? I'm not proposing that these need to be core, just ideas! 
Other than access to all weapons and all armor and an extra attack?

OK, snarkiness aside...

I Guess Imm just of the opinion that the fighter is not losing its identity. How else do you build Redgar?

I see the other classes using expertise dice as the fighter's little brothers. They all just want to be more like him. Its not their fault. But he's still the big cheese of battlefield prowess.
This may be an excerise in futility but I was thinking about the fighter and how it is losing part of its identity with the addition of the rogue and monk both using expertise dice. Sure it has different maneuvers, but for the most part the maneuvers emulate or are different versions of what other classes have. 


The answer to this is to give the Fighter unique maneuvers.  The structure isn't what defines the Fighter.  What the Fighter does with that structure is.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Mand12 +1
@ChrisCarlson: It is likely the extra attack will be reworked, lots of complaining about this. What they didn't show you about Redgar is the times a single spell defeated him because all his class had was feats, LOTS of feats.

I'm not railing against using ED, I like the concept. However, I have played the fighter since the first playtest and with more and more classes getting expertise dice I don't feel like I'm playing a class with much identity. 


@Mand12: Such as what unique maneuvers? That is a defining feature. That is exactly what I'm asking. Of course, adding maneuvers could mean that other classes can easily poach it if we have the splat-crazy world of 3.x, wob wob.

The structure of what? How a class is designed, defines that class.  

Take a look at the cleric and wizard, without the domains/god arthypes and the wizard traditions they are not that different of classes.  Adding those in is what makes the identity of each class stands out.

IMO, fighter, right now, is turning into the 3.x fighter. Every martial class has maneuvers, the fighter just has more and some special ones. That does not invoke the idea of a master of arms or a brave warrior if other classes have access to the same. The 4e fighter felt much more like its own class.

When I think of a fighter I think of the armsman from Dark Age of Camelot. His weapons and armor defined him.

Well, if you look at the maneuver list in the current update, you've got three lists:  one for fighters, one for monks, one for rogues.  Some things, like Lightning Reflexes, are shared among all three.  Things like that should be:  they're pretty generic, and there's no harm in spreading them around.  Some things are unique to a class, like the new monk maneuvers.  Splatbooks will add maneuvers to specific lists, for the class-defining sort of ones.  Sure, there may be more generic ones, but I guarantee you that a Monk supplement will add at least some Monk-only maneuvers.

I am curious as to why people seem to think that maneuvers aren't enough to define a class.  The 3.5 cleric and wizard use the same fundamental mechanic for their core class feature:  prepared spells.  Yet their spell lists are so different that nobody thinks they're the same class.  Take away all of the other class features - the spontaneous Cure spells, turn undead, bonus metamagic feats - and you'd still not have the same class, despite having the exact same spell progression.  Even if you took away the cleric's weapon and armor proficiencies and matched them with the wizard, they'd still be unique and identifiable based on the spell list alone.

We don't need entirely new structures to define a class.  It's one way to define a class, but it's not the only way.  Properly designed maneuver lists will work.  They do work for the Monk, in my opinion, but now the Fighter needs some more direct treatment.

And yes, figuring out what those maneuvers are?  Definitely thread-worthy, and a good topic for discussion.  But this idea that maneuvers are "3.5-ifying" the Fighter really isn't worth holding on to.  It wasn't the fact that the fighter got bonus feats that made the fighter boring, it was the fact that the feats themselves were boring.  It doesn't matter what the structure is, it matters what the fighter does with that structure.  If 3e bonus feats gave 4e-style effects, the 3e fighter would have been a very, very different experience.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
When I think of a fighter I think of the armsman from Dark Age of Camelot. His weapons and armor defined him.


What was the first thing I said?

"Other than access to all weapons and all armor and an extra attack?"

Rogues and Monks are very restricted on weapon and armor choices. Fighters are the only class with expertise dice (as of now) running around in plate armor and swinging big, scary weapons.
Step 1: Give the Fighter Something Unique
Step 2a: Realize that "Something Unique" is awesome
     and/or
Step 2b: Realize that "Something Unique" also 'makes sense' for other character classes
Step 3: Give "Something Unique" to other classes
Step 4: Go to 1

Tongue OutWink
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Seriously though, if you want their thing to be "All Weapons and Armor" - and for that to be something satisfying (and not just, effectively, "+numbers"), make them the class with weapon-(and armor-)specific maneuvers.

EDIT: Apparently I agree with the OP's approach, without even properly reading it. 
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Instead of the various builds just being examples of possible spell combos, I'd have each grant a small bonus.
And I'd bring back weapon specialization with a small static bonus that's easy to work into character sheets, but not so big that other weapons are useless. Possibly with armour specialization as a variant. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

Here's i came up with a few fighter specific ideas.  Giving it the 4e defender feel.

Threaten: You keep your blade poised, daring the enemy to turn it's back on you, even for a moment.  Effect: When you attack an enemy, set aside as many expertise dice as you wish (you get new dice for your next turn as normal).  If the enemy attacks an ally or disengages on it's next turn, roll the dice and add them together.  The enemy takes (twice?) that much damage.  The enemy is aware of this threat.

Distract: Weather by locking blades, imposing your shield, or grabing a tentical, you make it difficult for the enemy to get at our allies.  Effect: When you make a melee weapon attack, you can spend expertise dice to distract the target until the start of your next turn and while it's in your reach.  If it's next attack does not include you as a target it has disadvantage.  If you spend 2 dice, it's next 2 attacks, 3 dice for 3 attacks, ect...

Interpose:  With a lunge you push your ally out of the way, taking a blow ment for him.  Effect: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you can spend 2 expertise dice as a reaction to push your ally 5' out of the way and move 5' into its' space (this does not provoke for either of you).  You are now the target of the attack instead.  The attacker has advantage against you for the attack.
 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Step 1: Give the Fighter Something Unique
Step 2a: Realize that "Something Unique" is awesome
     and/or
Step 2b: Realize that "Something Unique" also 'makes sense' for other character classes
Step 3: Give "Something Unique" to other classes
Step 4: Go to 1



Do that a few iterations, and then eventually Step 1a is "send PHB to printing."

I have no problem with this.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It wasn't the fact that the fighter got bonus feats that made the fighter boring, it was the fact that the feats themselves were boring.


And more to the point, the feats were boring because everyone had access to the same feats. Fighter just go more of them. He was just spamming everyone else's tricks.

This fighter has access to maneuvers only he can have. So its not the same, to me at least.

Also, the way I choose to view the maneuvers lists: The fighter gets to pilfer key maneuvers from the other classes. That's how awesomesauce he is. Not the other way around.

I am curious as to why people seem to think that maneuvers aren't enough to define a class.  The 3.5 cleric and wizard use the same fundamental mechanic for their core class feature:  prepared spells.  Yet their spell lists are so different that nobody thinks they're the same class.


Because (a) there are almost certainly going to be fewer maneuvers than there are spells within the game (because the conceptual space is just smaller), and (b) a lot of maneuvers just conceptually won't "make sense" as exclusive options.

It's harder to say "The Fighter gets Deadly Strike, but [Class B] doesn't" than it is to say "The Wizard gets Magic Missile, but the Cleric doesn't".
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
(because the conceptual space is just smaller)


You sure about that?  Really sure?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
(because the conceptual space is just smaller)


You sure about that?  Really sure?


Than It's Friggin' Magic?

Yes.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Loook, back to the actual topic...

Here are the armor and weapon categories/groups - plus damage types - currently in next:


  • Light Armor

  • Medium Armor

  • Heavy Armor

  • Shields

  • Axe

  • Bow

  • Crossbow

  • Dagger

  • Flail

  • Hammer

  • Mace

  • Pick

  • Shield (as weapon)

  • Sling

  • Spear

  • Staff

  • Sword

  • Unarmed

  • Whip

  • bludgeoning

  • piercing

  • slashing


That's a lot of room to work in - though you might run into "Why is this limited to [x weapon/armor/damage type]?" issues pretty easily.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Assuming that the Paladin isn't an XD class, I feel like that gives the fighter a pretty bountiful niche as the class that uses XD to do what 4e would call defender stuff. There's not a whole lot of it currently in the rules, but mellored's ideas are nice, as is the thread he(?) linked to.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
That's a lot of room to work in - though you might run into "Why is this limited to [x weapon/armor/damage type]?" issues pretty easily.


Eh, I dunno, those seem rather easily dealt with.  A warhammer isn't as good for knocking someone prone as a flail is, you can't use your leather armor to absorb a blow as well as heavy armor would, you can't use a shortsword to knock someone senseless the way a warhammer can, etc.

There's plenty to work with.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I don't mind it OP. At least as an option. It can give weapon types more meaning without forcing it into the game for players who dont care.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Heeeeey guuuuuuys!

This may be an excerise in futility but I was thinking about the fighter and how it is losing part of its identity with the addition of the rogue and monk both using expertise dice. Sure it has different maneuvers, but for the most part the maneuvers emulate or are different versions of what other classes have. I'd hate for the fighter to turn into the 3.x fighter, where it is essentially a ball of feats.

So I was curious as to what ideas people had to differentiate the fighter, if you think it needs to be differentiated. 

Spew forth!

And the cycle begins anew, even though we're still in the playtest.

What good will it do to come up with some other mechanic for the fighter?  As long as enough people are convinced that anthing the fighter can do, anyone can do, it will be given away.  

First, every martial and "gish" class will get it.

Then there'll be magic items, then spells that let casters have it.  Then they'll get to stack stuff up to do it better than the fighter.  Someone's already suggested the Monk get /more/ expertise dice than the fighter.  CS was supposed to make the fighter 'best at fighting,' and already, there's suggestions floating that other classes should get more of the feature than the fighter.


Unless the game is willing to establish that the fighter is not mundane (not 'magical,' perhaps, but definitively /not/ mundane), and that just because the fighter can do something doesn't mean everyone can do it - nor even attempt it - it'll just keep playing out like this, like it has in every edition.


What other ideas do you guys have for differentiating the fighter? I'm not proposing that these need to be core, just ideas! 

How about we give it it's own unique list of manuevers, some of which are just as powerful as level-apropriate spell, but, which, for balance purposes, can't be used every round?  




 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I don't feel that the fighter is not unique at the moment. It certainly has abilities that are uniquely its own - and although I'd like to see them get Parry back as default, I think they look good.

Something I would consider though is giving the rogues a more powerful 10 minute resource - and then bump the fighter's expertise dice. 

The one thing I am worried about is ED becoming an 'every martial class' thing. Pigeonholing etc. I've mentioned this a few other places. I'd like to see a class with another new and very different resource delivery system.

That said, I wasn't complaining in Pathfinder when all the classes got at will abilities as they leveled... So maybe this is just me being irrational. 
An additional expertise die.  
The three ED classes are using the same table.  Give Fighter whatever that table says, plus another die of the same size.
I like the OP's idea about creating maneuvers based on weapon categories. After all, the fighter is supposed to be the weaponmaster. It also lets you keep the weapon rules simple in the core, and let those who want extra differentiation of weapons opt-in through weapon-based maneuvers.

You could just as easily make the Fighter the specialist in using expertise dice, kind of like how the wizard is all spells and nothing else. Give him more/higher dice and a larger list of maneuvers to make up for his lack of non ED based abilities.
My two copper.
You could just as easily make the Fighter the specialist in using expertise dice, kind of like how the wizard is all spells and nothing else. Give him more/higher dice and a larger list of maneuvers to make up for his lack of non ED based abilities.

"All spells and nothing else" means have at-will, encounter/'signature' daily and unlimited-free-ritual abilities.  What else do you need?  ;)   But, really, being marginally better at things anyone can do isn't a defining ability, it's a trivial bonus.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

You could just as easily make the Fighter the specialist in using expertise dice, kind of like how the wizard is all spells and nothing else. Give him more/higher dice and a larger list of maneuvers to make up for his lack of non ED based abilities.

"All spells and nothing else" means have at-will, encounter/'signature' daily and unlimited-free-ritual abilities.  What else do you need?  ;)   But, really, being marginally better at things anyone can do isn't a defining ability, it's a trivial bonus.




You are really putting what I said in a very narrow perspective. Fighter could have its own complete list of maneuvers. What I said in no way suggested fighters have all the same maneuvers as other classes, just a bit better. If they had their own maneuvers it could easily be a defining ability :P Cleric has spells too, does that make the wizard's magic just a trivial bonus?
My two copper.
Bigger, but fewer dice.  The fighter has the largest expected value if you roll all his dice, but maybe fewer ways to split them.

Bonuses to dice or "brutal" dice (reroll 1s, or reroll 1s and 2s).

Both.  One class is 3d6 (18 max, average 10.5), the other is 2d10b2 (20 max, average 12)

 

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima



"Other than access to all weapons and all armor and an extra attack?"

Rogues and Monks are very restricted on weapon and armor choices. Fighters are the only class with expertise dice (as of now) running around in plate armor and swinging big, scary weapons.



That is not what I meant, simply having armor and weapon proficiencies does not define the fighter. It is HOW they use the weapons, which is no different from any other class. 

 
I agree that if we think that martial means "anyone can do it", the fighter will never be special. But plenty of martial skills _require_ practice. For instance, lock picking is something martial we know you can only do with practice. Same with juggling.

Which means we have an excuse not to give away fighter abilities. Stop giving away the fighter abilities, and the fighter will feel unique.
Heeeeey guuuuuuys!

This may be an excerise in futility but I was thinking about the fighter and how it is losing part of its identity with the addition of the rogue and monk both using expertise dice. Sure it has different maneuvers, but for the most part the maneuvers emulate or are different versions of what other classes have. I'd hate for the fighter to turn into the 3.x fighter, where it is essentially a ball of feats.

So I was curious as to what ideas people had to differentiate the fighter, if you think it needs to be differentiated. 

Spew forth!

And the cycle begins anew, even though we're still in the playtest.

What good will it do to come up with some other mechanic for the fighter?  As long as enough people are convinced that anthing the fighter can do, anyone can do, it will be given away.  

First, every martial and "gish" class will get it.

Then there'll be magic items, then spells that let casters have it.  Then they'll get to stack stuff up to do it better than the fighter.  Someone's already suggested the Monk get /more/ expertise dice than the fighter.  CS was supposed to make the fighter 'best at fighting,' and already, there's suggestions floating that other classes should get more of the feature than the fighter.


Unless the game is willing to establish that the fighter is not mundane (not 'magical,' perhaps, but definitively /not/ mundane), and that just because the fighter can do something doesn't mean everyone can do it - nor even attempt it - it'll just keep playing out like this, like it has in every edition.


What other ideas do you guys have for differentiating the fighter? I'm not proposing that these need to be core, just ideas! 

How about we give it it's own unique list of manuevers, some of which are just as powerful as level-apropriate spell, but, which, for balance purposes, can't be used every round?  








I agree 10000000 %.

this NEEDS to be understood: a 13th lvl fighter is not "bob the axeman" (something i call "the axeman fallacy") but an impossibly great fighter whose feats, while physical/martial in nature, STILL defy logic like a high-level spell does. in a supposed 5th-ed d20 modern, a 13th-lvl "fighter" should be able to repel bullets with his skin and cut through 60-ton tanks with a swordstrike-do things NOBODY can do. not "lift 12 lbs more than the 1st lvl fighter, oh yeah thats mundane, let the wizard do it too".
You could just as easily make the Fighter the specialist in using expertise dice, kind of like how the wizard is all spells and nothing else. Give him more/higher dice and a larger list of maneuvers to make up for his lack of non ED based abilities.

"All spells and nothing else" means have at-will, encounter/'signature' daily and unlimited-free-ritual abilities. 


No, that's not what that means.  That's one possibility of what it means, but it's not nearly so direct as you claim.


Does anyone seriously believe that the wizard's identity is forever compromised because the cleric also casts spells?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
And the cycle begins anew, even though we're still in the playtest.

What good will it do to come up with some other mechanic for the fighter?  As long as enough people are convinced that anthing the fighter can do, anyone can do, it will be given away.  

First, every martial and "gish" class will get it.

Then there'll be magic items, then spells that let casters have it.  Then they'll get to stack stuff up to do it better than the fighter.  Someone's already suggested the Monk get /more/ expertise dice than the fighter.  CS was supposed to make the fighter 'best at fighting,' and already, there's suggestions floating that other classes should get more of the feature than the fighter.



Then they'll narrow some of the things that can be done, and make sure that some classes can only do some things, and other classes can only do other things. They want to differentiate the classes that use Expertise Dice, so they make sure that the manoeuvres are increasingly situational and that no class will get all of them. The Fighter is already suffering from that, of course. Observe the difference between October Parry and Parry in the newest playtest. Can't have classes being too versatile, can we, unless they're spell casters and deserve an ever increasing breadth of abilities.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

atta bluenose. well done bro, nobody seems to understand it, because at the moment martial classes seem to be balanced mainly against one another... but they are facing a tremendous danger. the end of their viability is near as the spellcasters will again get so many spells-and who cares for damage spells like fireball, thats OK, i mean role-stealing spells, like invisibility and mirror image stealing rogue's role, blade barrier/wall of force/stoneskin/shield/contingency stealing fighter's role, true seeing/see invisibility/locate object/scrying stealing ranger's role, etc.

our swordsmen will once again be built as wizards with a weapon proficiency feat, as that will be the most effective thing to do, just like in 3rd ed., protected not by armour but by great layered defenses of different spell buffs, with bonuses well-stacked so they never lose concentration. SOMEBODY must speak it, so that this never gets to print without the martial classes gaining something meaningful to be equaly powerful.
Not really on topic here but frustrating

Does anyone seriously believe that the wizard's identity is forever compromised because the cleric also casts spells?


Maneuvers are not spells, though.  Which brings us back to this exchange:
(because the conceptual space is just smaller)


You sure about that?  Really sure?


Than It's Friggin' Magic?

Yes.



And back to the 3e Fighter comparison.

Does anyone seriously believe that the wizard's (3e)fighter's identity is forever compromised because the cleric any primary combat class also casts spells has combat feats (some of them "fighter exclusive" combat feats) and a full base attack bonus?

(Many would answer yes.)

Actually on-topic?
You could start by mining Martial Power 2's "combat styles" for ideas on weapon- or weapon-group-specific options, though so many of those come down to 4e's "little piddly bonuses (that add up)".  3e had more (and better) combat feats as the game wore on.  Tome of Battle (and, to an extent, the "powers" aspect of 4e) is probably not that useful, because its maneuvers are much more like spells - each with a specific and discrete effect, and lots (and lots) of conceptual overlap that wouldn't fly nearly as well in the maneuver system. 

3.5's "Player's Handbook 2" had something called Combat Focus (a set of feats that served, effectively, as a proto-'stance' mechanic); Tome of Battle has the first stances (I believe); 4e certainly "refined" the concept and implementation - there should be a lot of space to work with the concept of "stances" again.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
What I would not be keen on seeing, is a mechanic built around marrying martial characters to a specific weapon (or tight group of weapons) in such a way as to make it feel essential for them to specialize.

This always felt a little like a trap to me in previous editions.

The locking in of any character to a specific weapon choice pigeonholes them too much, IMO. And makes in-game decisions later on, to change weapons for any number of reasons, far too punishing.
Just because they screwed up the 3e fighter doesn't mean they will this time, frito.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What I would not be keen on seeing, is a mechanic built around marrying martial characters to a specific weapon (or tight group of weapons) in such a way as to make it feel essential for them to specialize.

This always felt a little like a trap to me in previous editions.

The locking in of any character to a specific weapon choice pigeonholes them too much, IMO. And makes in-game decisions later on, to change weapons for any number of reasons, far too punishing.


I actually agree.  On related lines, if we got into stuff like "[Tripping Flail Maneuver: It helps you Trip]", we get over to the "Why can't I use [x weapon] to trip?  It's not a flail, but it should still be really good at it" type of concerns.

A solution would be the 3e/4e route of "give weapons/weapon-groups abilities".  A "differentiating the Fighter" solution might be to give a table of abilities for the various weapons/weapon-groups that is unique to the Fighter.  Essentially just move those weapon abilities and properties from the weapons themselves to the Fighter class.

Just because they screwed up the 3e fighter doesn't mean they will this time, frito.


Just because it's not 3e, doesn't mean they won't screw it up again, Mand12.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
If we reject everything they might screw up, we might as well just stop posting here entirely.  It's not a constructive position to take.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

One of the issues with increasing the number of maneuvers available is that you can only pick so many in the first place. Looks to me like the fighter's maneuver list is being mined for other class ideas, which is a reasonable springboard for creating new stuff but once you do that you create a common list that everyone's considered to need.


You're then left with some choices: relabel maneuvers and tweak so they're more custom designed for each class, but that has some obvious hate from the 4e power bloat monster. Understandable to want to avoid that.


Another way is to leave them as is and just let classes pick off the common list, which leaves the classes all feeling a bit eroded.


Still another is to create a base mechanic open to all characters that cover the "must have" maneuvers. They do this all ready but I'm talking about an expanded system that actually enables some of the maneuvers everyone has access to as combat options. You would then strike that maneuver from the power list.


Finally, you can axe it entirely once you establish what maneuvers are considered best for each class and then redraft all the maneuvers from the ground up, using your original list as a guide and only overlapping where it's absolutely necessary. Far and away the most work.


I think the last two are best: If everyone needs deadly strike, then it shouldn't be an expertise maneuver. It should simply be folded into standard attacks. If everyone needs a push maneuver, it should be a combat option and not a special power. Determine what everyone wants and do that and then redraft the maneuvers with less overlap.



But most of all, we just need more maneuvers.

Looks to me like the fighter's maneuver list is being mined for other class ideas,


This is only because the fighter's list was determined first, because they were the first class to get XD, and they haven't had a specific, in-depth revision yet.

Don't extrapolate end-state intent from individual development steps.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition