With Global Expertise Dice, What Should Fighter Get?

According to the most recent L&L article, Expertise Dice is, at the moment, being considered as an universal mechanic common to all "martial" classes (although I imagine some gish classes may get it as well at some point).

With that in mind, Mearls states that the Fighter class should get something else to call its own (a statement I wholeheartedly agree with). However, Mearls' suggestion is that the class gets Parry as a non-maneuver feature, which, in my opinion, is lackluster, to say the least. Firstly, because it is kinda boring (you get to reduce damage taken on a round-by-round basis, if they keep it in its current form); secondly, because it makes no sense that parrying, which is one of the most iconic moves in fantasy swordplay duels, should be reserved for a single class.

So I created this thread to ask you all your opinion: what should the fighter get? Time to get creative, guys!

In my head, considering that the Fighter is the "100% combat class" (or close enough that it doesn't make a difference), I imagine that the class' schtick should be ways of enhancing it's Expertise Dice capacities, sort of a "meta-maneuver" class. One of the simplest way to portrait fighters being the best combatants is by giving them more maneuvers (and I'm fine with this, as long as other classes get something to compensate, unlike the current rogue), but it's far from the only one.

How about Fighters being able to spend ED to improve combat options such as disarm, trip, or grab? Or being able to renew it's ED pool both in the beginning and in the end of it's turn, thus allowing the character to spend everything on out-of-turn attacks (such as opportunity attacks) and still having more to use on its own turn? Or the ability to spend ED to mitigate conditions (spend ED to not suffer the ill effects from slowed / restrained / blinded / stunned during your turn, with different costs depending on the gravity of the condition)? Or, and I love this one, the ability to "save up" your dice from one round to the next, allowing the fighter to hold back during the first few rounds in order to make devastating attacks later? Or (if we want to give the Fighter a Warlord-esque characteristic) a feature that allows the Fighter to spend his own ED during his allies' turns to improve their attacks?

And the cherry in the top of the cake: we could make ALL of these possible Fighter features! Just make the fighter choose one at 1st level, or maybe one at 1st level and one every 5 levels thereafter, or something like that. Of course, they would have to be properly balanced against each other to make every one a viable option, but once this is done, we get a fighter class that's very customizable, extremely interesting, and that truly shows it's complete supremacy at the battlefield. Even tough other classes get ED and maneuvers, the Fighter is the specialist in making the best out of them. I would love such a class.

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

I'd prefer to see something done here that's more difficult to do with maneuvers or maybe even something augments maneuvers and expertise dice themselves. For example, it'd be great to see a more Defender-like ability, not necessary a marking mechanics but maybe something like... I don't know, maybe they get an additional free expertise die to use when they make an opportunity attack? Or an additional free expertise die to use on their next turn if they hit with an opportunity attack? Or the opposite, if they miss with an opportunity attack?
...
How about this? For all classes, Expertise Dice are something that they can only use on their own turn, period. Simple. The Fighter's signature ability is that it gets an additional pool of expertise dice to use between turns for opportunity attacks. Maybe it's equal to it's normal pool or maybe it's half or something else, whatever. The point is that Expertise gets simplified and the Fighter gets something unique that can't be replicated by maneuvers that other classes should be able to access.

The basic message is that they should have a unique way to utilize expertise dice.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Should?
Dunno.

What will the Fighter get?
(1) More of the same, and then
(2) Depressed.

Tongue Out
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 will the Fighter get?
(1) More of the same, and then
(2) Depressed.




Probably. Or, if they do indeed get something interesting, it'll probably be avaliable to everyone else before the first splatbook.

I'd give them abilities and manuevers based on the weapons they use. Maybe even a free maneuver each round.

Two handed blades get one free cleave/round
Two handed Bludgeorning weapons get one push or knockback
Finesse Weapons like Rapiers could get a free Parry
etc.

I'd also up their XD progression

1d6 at level 1
4d10 by level 10
The topic of "What the fighter should do" was brought up on another forum, and one person wrote a response so good, I'm sharing it:

Apparently being tactical or clever isn't what fighter is "about", those are the rogue and wizard's jobs. Fighter is supposed to be a big dumb meatstick, possibly even dumber than a barbarian or a stump, whose job is to soak damage and smash mans. Reading a book is far beyond the fighter role description, although eating it might not be.

But OK, since the tactical, board-altering 4e fighter is clearly not in the cards anymore, lets go with the smashman role. That role can be fun, and easy enough for new players to understand, we just have to really commit to it. Instead of faffing around with these nancy expertise dice and henchmen and fortresses and whatever, the fighter now gets Murder Dice. They can spend them to straight up murder 1d3 opponents once per day, no questions asked. As the fighter gets more levels, they get bigger and more numerous Murder Dice. They can buy feats to have their Murder Dice affect other things, like Trapmurder, Wallmurder, or Spellmurder. Since we're not getting Marking back, I'd like to contribute to the game instead of carrying loot and soaking damage.

Actually that started out as a joke but I think I like it more than I'm willing to admit. Murder Dice!



If the Fighter is realy going to be the simple "I stab with sword" character, at least make it so he can fun to play.  And the power of Murder is simple to understand and fun to play.
Aw, I had forgotten about Murder Dice - I love that.
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)
ROFLMAO

::Facepalm::

Man, I hate to see this.  I prefer Pathfinder to 4ed, but the man has a good point.  What ever happened to the Fighter build who was as much a Tactician as a Warrior.  Not to bring up the arguement inducing 'Healing' of the Warlord class, but shouldn't the Fighter have the ability to do well out of Combat as well?  I think he should.
I'd like to see fighters get better at when and how they can attack. For instance, the circumstances that they can do something like and Attack of Opportunity should increase. Maybe they can start using their extra attack as an immediate action eventually.
Get more out of weapons.  When a fighter has a sword, he can do something nifty with hit.  when he has an axe, he can do something different, but still nifty with hit.  And so on for flails, spears, bows, crossbows, clubs, and any other weapon group.

And that's without feats, or if they become feats, they are feats he gets for free.

Maybe a similar thing with armor and shields. 
As long as maneuvers remain relevant for the game's distance, fighters don't need anything more than the broadest access to them.
Heroic Actions:  The fighter is the most archetypally  heroic of the heroic characters.  He gets access to a certain number of heroic actions per day,  dunno how this would be managed, fatigue points, encounter/daily powers, whatever.

Some examples:


  • Heroic Might:  The fighters carrying capacity is trippled for the rest of his turn.  He can also use anything he can lift as a thrown weapon with damage dice that match its size.

  • Heroic maelstrom: Every enemy adjacent to the fighter takes damage.  For the rest of the round every enemy that moves adjacent or past the fighter takes damage.

  • Heroic Destruction:  Destroy one inanament object.

  • Heroic Intimidation:  Every intellegent humanoid within 50 feet not allied with the fighter pisses themselves in fear.  All allies must make a Will save or do the same.

  • Heroic Drinking:  A fighter only gains the aspects of the drunk condition that he chooses.  Any character that challenges him to a drinking contest whil this power is active dies of alcohol poisoning.

  • Heroic Wenching:  The fighter beds one NPC of his or her choice.

  • Heroic Murder:  Enemy must make a fortitude save or die in a graphic  and cinimatic way of the fighters choice.


I hate to post this out of fear of angry reactions (keep in mind it'ds just an idea), but....

Why can't we just axe the fighter (but keep him as he is now) but make him the warlord. We can give him special abilities that are either 'Tactical' or 'Martial Healing' and that be the extra sauce that is on a fighter? 

So you have a core of close combat (manuevers) and special abilites (encounter or daily) that represent tactician or martial healer?

Any thoughts?

 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

While I think disecting the fighter and giving other classes his stuff would be great (he is the biggest archetype right next to wizard which should also be broken up). I'm not sure what your after trying to make the current fighter the warlord and not replacing it.
I'm not sure what your after trying to make the current fighter the warlord and not replacing it.

Would it really hurt anything if Fighter and Warlord (or Marshal) were smooshed together?

Really, there's a good pile of classes that could be folded into Fighter as the other gimmick.  it would be really awesome if Fighter just got to choose its secondary role (from warlord, marshal, or even ranger or paladin) as part of being a fighter.

While I think disecting the fighter and giving other classes his stuff would be great (he is the biggest archetype right next to wizard which should also be broken up). I'm not sure what your after trying to make the current fighter the warlord and not replacing it.



Everyone seems to have the problem that think the fighter is boring. I think this is becuase he is a little one dimensional (melee or ranged close combat). By making the fighter THE warlord you give him a function beyond "swing this chink of metal" and he can now have a role. 

It makes sense to me because training to be a fighter wouldn't just entail melee fighting, it would include things like strategies and tactics. This is what it needs to feel like a complete class (IMO), but I worry such ideas would step on warlords toes. So why not just make the warlord the fighter, with extra abilities more normal to the warlord. People can choose manuevers that could gear their charachter more towards a straight fighter or straight warlord. 

My two cents, ponder it. 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

According to the most recent L&L article, Expertise Dice is, at the moment, being considered as an universal mechanic common to all "martial" classes (although I imagine some gish classes may get it as well at some point).

The monk already does.  Its likely that everyone able to use weapons (and that's everyone) will eventually get some similar mechanic, even if its an item or spell that grants it temporarily.  


With that in mind, Mearls states that the Fighter class should get something else to call its own (a statement I wholeheartedly agree with). However, Mearls' suggestion is that the class gets Parry as a non-maneuver feature, which, in my opinion, is lackluster, to say the least. Firstly, because it is kinda boring (you get to reduce damage taken on a round-by-round basis, if they keep it in its current form); secondly, because it makes no sense that parrying, which is one of the most iconic moves in fantasy swordplay duels, should be reserved for a single class.

And there's really no chance that other classes, particularly casters, won't have ways of reducing damage (which is all parry does, and parry only works in melee, because the Monk stole the portion of it that worked at range).  There will certainly be spells like Stoneskin, for instance.

Afterall, magic can do anything, so if a fighter can do it a spell can do it, and since the fighter can do it "all day," and the spell only once, obviously the spell will have to do it better.  

As long as people think that way, it will be impossible for a fighter very to have anything going for it.  It might as well be dropped as a PC option.  


So I created this thread to ask you all your opinion: what should the fighter get? Time to get creative, guys!

The fighter doesn't really need to get anything.  Other classes just need to stop getting /everything/.  As it stands, the fighter is the game's base-line collection of abilities.  If a fighter can do it, anywone can do it, just with smaller numbers unless they devote some resources - feat/item/spell/whatever to doing it /better/ than the fighter.  All other classes are defined by the myriad things they can do which the fighter can't.  

A change in attitude is what's required.  The fighter must be seen as modeling exceptional, heroic warriors who can do things ordinary warriors and non-warriors (including other PC classes) wouldn't dream of attempting and would die messily if ever they did.  Until the fighter is accepted as a worthy PC class, the pattern we've seen will just repeat.  Someone will dream up something cool for the fighter, and every other class will go "that's cool, and I have martial training" or "that's cool, and magic can do anything" and get it, also.

In my head, considering that the Fighter is the "100% combat class" (or close enough that it doesn't make a difference), I imagine that the class' schtick should be ways of enhancing it's Expertise Dice capacities, sort of a "meta-maneuver" class. One of the simplest way to portrait fighters being the best combatants is by giving them more maneuvers (and I'm fine with this, as long as other classes get something to compensate, unlike the current rogue), but it's far from the only one.

How about Fighters being able to spend ED to improve combat options such as disarm, trip, or grab?

There are a lot of maneuvers.  A given martial character can only do so many, and he chooses which ones as he levels up.  There are a lot of spells.  A given caster can only use so many of them at a given moment, but some can choose from all of them, and others can expand their lists with few practical limits.  Just giving the fighter a few more maneuvers doesn't make him competative in versatility, especially considering that maneuvers are greatly limited in the power and scope of what they can do compared to spells.

So that's a dead end.

Or being able to renew it's ED pool both in the beginning and in the end of it's turn, thus allowing the character to spend everything on out-of-turn attacks (such as opportunity attacks) and still having more to use on its own turn?

The fighters' abilities are already forced to be weaker to balance being more available than daily spells, so lets make them even more available?  

Or the ability to spend ED to mitigate conditions (spend ED to not suffer the ill effects from slowed / restrained / blinded / stunned during your turn, with different costs depending on the gravity of the condition)?

That's almost as good as the 1e fighter's great saving throws at high level.  

Or, and I love this one, the ability to "save up" your dice from one round to the next, allowing the fighter to hold back during the first few rounds in order to make devastating attacks later?

That would give the fighter some potential 'peak power.'  He could choose to suck in the early rounds of the fighte to have one big 'moment of awesome' later in the fight.  Assuming there /is/ a later in the fight...  That's still strictly inferior to the casters' ability to choose such a moment at any point in a day or battle.

And the cherry in the top of the cake: we could make ALL of these possible Fighter features! Just make the fighter choose one at 1st level, or maybe one at 1st level and one every 5 levels thereafter, or something like that. Of course, they would have to be properly balanced against each other to make every one a viable option, but once this is done, we get a fighter class that's very customizable, extremely interesting, and that truly shows it's complete supremacy at the battlefield. Even tough other classes get ED and maneuvers, the Fighter is the specialist in making the best out of them. I would love such a class.

So, what are your opinions? And do you have any other suggestions that could make the Fighter a truly excellent class?

The key stumbling block is one of attitude.  Enough D&Ders - and, it seems likely, D&D designers - have a concept of the fighter as a class that, by definition, can never have any ability that's strictly it's own.   Since 5e is all about nostalgia and rewarding system mastery and doling out the most popular bits of past eds, it's not the vehicle to challenge an old and deeply-held prejudice.  


 

 

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

The key stumbling block is one of attitude.  Enough D&Ders - and, it seems likely - D&D designers, have a concept of the fighter as a class that, by definition, can never have any ability that's strictly it's own.   Since 5e is all about nostalgia and rewarding system mastery and doling out the most popular bits of past eds, it's not the vehicle to challenge an old and deeply-help prejudice. 

Boring Fighter is acceptable, so long as there's no way for some other class (see also: CoDZilla) to just plain be a better fighter than Fighter.

Awesome Boring is okay.  Overshadowed Boring is not.  Giving the fighter something to do other than "I swing my sword at it, and maybe also barely inconvenience it for a round" would be nice.

The key stumbling block is one of attitude.  Enough D&Ders - and, it seems likely - D&D designers, have a concept of the fighter as a class that, by definition, can never have any ability that's strictly it's own.   Since 5e is all about nostalgia and rewarding system mastery and doling out the most popular bits of past eds, it's not the vehicle to challenge an old and deeply-help prejudice. 

Boring Fighter is acceptable, so long as there's no way for some other class (see also: CoDZilla) to just plain be a better fighter than Fighter.

Given that specialization and limited-use are compensated with greater power, it's prettymuch unavoidable that many other classes, perhaps all of them, will be  just plain better than the fighter at some specific style or aspect of fighting, some of the time.

So the Ranger may be a better archer, the Paladin a better mounted Knight, the Druid better when shapechanged and buffed, the Cleric better when buffed and fighting undead, the Wizard able to summon something better for a few round a day, etc...

 

 

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

Boring Fighter is acceptable


Personally, no, no it is not.  "Boring" was my #1 complaint with the 3e Fighter (not really boring, but having the same things to do, all of the time, forever - or just for levels at a time - with just different numbers).  "Boring" will keep me from buying 5e, because I can get "Awesome boring" Fighters from free RPG systems, online, for free.  And they're not even all that "boring", either.

As the primary option, and especially as the only option:"Boring" won't cut 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)
Which is "bad" because "fight" is all the fighter really gets to do.
4E made a good attempt at it, but "fight more" or "fight that guy and move him over there" just isn't good enough.

Just eliminate Fighter as a class, and change Marshal or Warlord's name to "Fighter" in its place.
Heroic Actions:  The fighter is the most archetypally  heroic of the heroic characters.  He gets access to a certain number of heroic actions per day,  dunno how this would be managed, fatigue points, encounter/daily powers, whatever.

Some examples:
Heroic Might:  The fighters carrying capacity is trippled for the rest of his turn.  He can also use anything he can lift as a thrown weapon with damage dice that match its size.



This one is ok, but where are the rules for improvised weapons that make this worth taking.

Heroic maelstrom: Every enemy adjacent to the fighter takes damage.  For the rest of the round every enemy that moves adjacent or past the fighter takes damage.



Yeah, auto damage is generally frowned upon. Maybe they have to roll one attack and they check the attack roll against all adjacent enemies and if they hit they deal X amount of damage.

Heroic Destruction:  Destroy one inanament object.



How about a damage bonus when attempting to destroy objects? Auto destroying objects is broken:
DM "you must climb this wall to get into the keep"
Fighter "I use Heroice Destruction to destroy the wall."

Heroic Intimidation:  Every intellegent humanoid within 50 feet not allied with the fighter pisses themselves in fear.  All allies must make a Will save or do the same.



That would never fly. Maybe the Fighter makes an intimidate check and adds ED.

Heroic Drinking:  A fighter only gains the aspects of the drunk condition that he chooses.  Any character that challenges him to a drinking contest whil this power is active dies of alcohol poisoning.



Yeah, insta death never works.

Heroic Wenching:  The fighter beds one NPC of his or her choice.



Auto success never works. What happens when they have to convince the Queen to let them do something. Then the Fighter just beds her. Totally destroys the story.

Heroic Murder:  Enemy must make a fortitude save or die in a graphic  and cinimatic way of the fighters choice.



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

Just eliminate Fighter as a class, and change Marshal or Warlord's name to "Fighter" in its place.



This is why, is my secret-iest dreams, hope that they will ditch the Fighter alltogether and instead create several fighting classes that are more specialized, and with more RP baggage, which allows them to have awesome non-combat features as well. Knight, Duelist (or Swashbuckler), Marshal, Dervish are good examples, maybe even Pirate. They don't need to bear the weight of being a "100% combat class", since all of them could have non-combat abilities derived from their place in the world (The Knight has station and diplomatic features and maybe a honor code and a steed; the Duelist got panache and charisma-related features and maybe extra skills; the Dervish has more mobility and endurance and knows how to survive in deserts, maybe with fire resistance, and so on). Also, this would be more in line with the "iconic specialist fighters" such as Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian, and nobody would question whether these should be classes or builds.

Unfortunately for me, this will never work with D&D. Too much nostalgia and grognardism.

EDIT: By the way, not only the Fighter: I think the so-called "core classes" are too broad when compared to the other iconic classes in this game. Rogue could very well be shattered into Assassin, Burglar, Thief, Spy (it would also solve the "Sneak Attack problem", since some people don't like that their charismatic seductors know how to kill a person with a few precise strikes). Wizard? Wizard is the broadest of them all, and could very easily be divided into Necromancer, Enchanter, Illusionist, Warmage (or Evoker), Summoner, etc. Cleric is a little bit trickier, but I'm sure it could be done, if they put their minds into it.
Personally, I'd like to see a rewrite of the 'Tome of Battle' for DnDNext.  Tone down some of the supernatural powers and put them at higher levels, and change the 'Crusader' to the baseline Fighter.

I also think the Fighter class needs the ability to interact meaningfully in the Social Pillar.  As anyone who's served in the Military can confirm, Politics is an ever present part of the job (though that seems to be the case in any job). Officers receive training for exactly that subject, and even the NCO's must participate in order to get the 'good' postings.  I don't doubt that 'who you know' and 'what they think of you' have just as much impact on a Town Guardsman, or Lord's Man-at-Arms, or even the wandering Mercenary.  To insist that the Fighter has to only be good at Combat, and then even has to share that, is exactly why I tend to play other systems.
Personally, I'd like to see a rewrite of the 'Tome of Battle' for DnDNext.  Tone down some of the supernatural powers and put them at higher levels, and change the 'Crusader' to the baseline Fighter.



Warblade, surely. The Crusader is not without supernatural/extraordinary abilities.

I also think the Fighter class needs the ability to interact meaningfully in the Social Pillar.  As anyone who's served in the Military can confirm, Politics is an ever present part of the job (though that seems to be the case in any job). Officers receive training for exactly that subject, and even the NCO's must participate in order to get the 'good' postings.  I don't doubt that 'who you know' and 'what they think of you' have just as much impact on a Town Guardsman, or Lord's Man-at-Arms, or even the wandering Mercenary.  To insist that the Fighter has to only be good at Combat, and then even has to share that, is exactly why I tend to play other systems.



Considering the sorts of things that a Knight, a Samurai, a Ghulam, or a Maryannu would be expected to know as a normal part of society, you'd expect elite warriors (and that describes PCs) of all types to be rather capable in many situations.

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. 

Personally, I'd like to see a rewrite of the 'Tome of Battle' for DnDNext.  Tone down some of the supernatural powers and put them at higher levels, and change the 'Crusader' to the baseline Fighter.



Warblade, surely. The Crusader is not without supernatural/extraordinary abilities.

I also think the Fighter class needs the ability to interact meaningfully in the Social Pillar.  As anyone who's served in the Military can confirm, Politics is an ever present part of the job (though that seems to be the case in any job). Officers receive training for exactly that subject, and even the NCO's must participate in order to get the 'good' postings.  I don't doubt that 'who you know' and 'what they think of you' have just as much impact on a Town Guardsman, or Lord's Man-at-Arms, or even the wandering Mercenary.  To insist that the Fighter has to only be good at Combat, and then even has to share that, is exactly why I tend to play other systems.



Considering the sorts of things that a Knight, a Samurai, a Ghulam, or a Maryannu would be expected to know as a normal part of society, you'd expect elite warriors (and that describes PCs) of all types to be rather capable in many situations.

LOL, you are correct Bluenose, I meant Warblade.  Trying to do too many things at once, here.   And I agree completely.  The Fighter can be as simple as a Town Guard, who just does his job and no more.  It can also be as you say, an Individual who has been trained in many aspects of Social obligations as well as Combat ability.  The current version of Fighter, which is allowed to be so broad to cover all these different examples, should be able to do them justice.
Personally, I'd like to see a rewrite of the 'Tome of Battle' for DnDNext.  Tone down some of the supernatural powers and put them at higher levels, and change the '[Warblade]' to the baseline Fighter.

I'm pretty sure that the Warblade didn't have access to any of the supernatural maneuver schools to begin with. Desert Wind and Shadow Hand were Sword-Sage exclusive, and the Crusader-exclusive Devoted Spirit was arguably mundane, just the first example we got of martial healing.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
How about a simple form of weapon specialization that enhances XD? You pick one weapon group (e.g., Axe, Bow, or Sword) and your XD when used with a weapon from that group gain the reliable 2 property (any roll lower than a 2 is treated as a 2). Every few levels, you can pick a new group or increase the reliability rating of a group you already have.

Parry won't work as the Fighter-only ability because sharpshooters and other ranged fighters have little use for it. The Fighter's Style needs to be more than just a pre-selected maneuver package, and on top of that they need a selectable class feature that defines/enables their out-of-combat role. Like an additional or more potent Background.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module


Afterall, magic can do anything, so if a fighter can do it a spell can do it, and since the fighter can do it "all day," and the spell only once, obviously the spell will have to do it better.  

As long as people think that way, it will be impossible for a fighter very to have anything going for it.  It might as well be dropped as a PC option.  




You could expand this to include any class really. Take a look at the spell lists from 2e or 3e. Basically a wizard (or cleric) could do everything that every other class could do and do it better. Of course they could do it only once per day and therefore we have the 5mwd.

This is the hard truth of vancian spellcasting: towards the end of an edition all the new spells have rendered all non-spellcasters obsolete. 
Yeah but don't fighters get multi-attacks?

"I hit it with my sword! Again!"

That's something special, right? Wink 
Cleric is a little bit trickier, but I'm sure it could be done, if they put their minds into it.

Cleric is the class showing us how to do it. 
D&D has been desperately attempting to ditch the "stock Cleric" since 1989.
The topic of "What the fighter should do" was brought up on another forum, and one person wrote a response so good, I'm sharing it:

Apparently being tactical or clever isn't what fighter is "about", those are the rogue and wizard's jobs. Fighter is supposed to be a big dumb meatstick, possibly even dumber than a barbarian or a stump, whose job is to soak damage and smash mans. Reading a book is far beyond the fighter role description, although eating it might not be.

But OK, since the tactical, board-altering 4e fighter is clearly not in the cards anymore, lets go with the smashman role. That role can be fun, and easy enough for new players to understand, we just have to really commit to it. Instead of faffing around with these nancy expertise dice and henchmen and fortresses and whatever, the fighter now gets Murder Dice. They can spend them to straight up murder 1d3 opponents once per day, no questions asked. As the fighter gets more levels, they get bigger and more numerous Murder Dice. They can buy feats to have their Murder Dice affect other things, like Trapmurder, Wallmurder, or Spellmurder. Since we're not getting Marking back, I'd like to contribute to the game instead of carrying loot and soaking damage.

Actually that started out as a joke but I think I like it more than I'm willing to admit. Murder Dice!



If the Fighter is realy going to be the simple "I stab with sword" character, at least make it so he can fun to play.  And the power of Murder is simple to understand and fun to play.



I feel bad. I'd put a sidebar w/ DM Fiat for BBEGs and Dragons just taking 50 damage/Murder Dice. I know it's a nerf, but... 

I feel bad 'cause I like it. It sounds like a lot of fun.

But, I'd settle for a Warblade replacing a fighter. That'd be pretty sweet. Monk's practically a swordsage, already.

"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls

Afterall, magic can do anything, so if a fighter can do it a spell can do it, and since the fighter can do it "all day," and the spell only once, obviously the spell will have to do it better.  

As long as people think that way, it will be impossible for a fighter ever to have anything going for it.  It might as well be dropped as a PC option.  




You could expand this to include any class really. Take a look at the spell lists from 2e or 3e. Basically a wizard (or cleric) could do everything that every other class could do and do it better. Of course they could do it only once per day and therefore we have the 5mwd.

This is the hard truth of vancian spellcasting: towards the end of an edition all the new spells have rendered all non-spellcasters obsolete. 

Any non-caster, sure, but they're a distinct minority among D&D classes.  If D&D's going to embrace being the "weird wizard show," it might as well be up-front about it.

 

 

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

I'd rather they focus on weapon fighting styles. Give features to Fighters that pick Two-Handed Weapon Fighting Style, Two-Weapon Fighting Style, One-Handed Weapon and Sheild Fighting Style, One-Handed Weapon Fighting Style.


Actually, I'd much prefer it if the Fighter got ALL of these straight out of the box.  They should be weapons masters.  Able to pick up and use any weapon and style as needed.

Rogue/Thieves should be Duelists, One Weapon or Dual Wielding.

Clerics should get One Weapon, One Weapon and Shield and maybe Two handed.

Wizards get One Weapon and Two Handed (for staves)

But Fighters should get all of them. 
Sign In to post comments