The Fighter Is Boring.

One thing 4th Edition did right was making the melee classes as much fun to play as a wizard or a cleric. I was sad to see that this regressed in Next. Even if you don't do it the same way, How about just different ways to attack? Different fighting styles that give different sets of attacks?

I recall a medieval guide to fighting with a sword written by a german author who's name escapes me. It describes multitudes of tricks and stances for melee fighting. Something resembling this would make for some interesting fighter play. One final thought on this matter is making fighting with every weapon different. Even small things like "Using a mace does additional damage to heavy armor" to larger things like "Using an axe gives this ability, only usable with an axe." Just some of my passing idea's. 


Any thoughts?
Good thing the fighter in 5e has multiple fighting styles and maneuvers eh?
My two copper.
Problem is most manouvers are not worth the damage tradeoff in all but a few situations, as well I don't think fighters get anough of them. Really I think fighters should switch from a MDD system to a Manouver Point system where they have maybe 1-4 points to use on manouvers instead of the 6 dice. Manouvers would then specify any dice used. The MDD damage could then be replaced with Weapon Damage so as to have a proper tradeoff between larger and smaller weapons (though it might be too big by default). Perhaps even then a one hander could grant an extra manouver point.

This system would allow fighters to combine chain manouvers without killing their damage. The fighter then becomes less, I'll spend my point on damage, and more how can I spend my points to get the most utility on top of my damage. I think this also works well to represent the fighter as a master of combat as opposed to a simple DPS machine it can fell like now.
The things you can do with the current manuever system is so insignificant and redundant to the point of might as well not being there...
I wrote the below response in another thread. The TL/DR version is that while the 5e fighter has a lot of maneuvers available, they are all rather mundane and uninspiring. At level 1 a 4e fighter could do basically everything a level 20 5e fighter can and more.

 
Show
In pre 4e and in 5e, the most effective route to overcoming any combat is simply dealing damage. You could of course improvise, but unless you had a fairly lenient GM the penalties incurred were often no worth the trade off in damage. Pre 4e D&D also had relatively poor guidelines for improvised actions.
In 4e, fighters gained a number of signature maneuvers that they could attempt each fight in the form of encounter powers. While some were similar to their 3e predecessors (an attack that damages a foe and knocks them prone for example has parallels to the trip feats) they benefitted in that there was neither a size restriction or an opposed roll. This allowed these abilites to be more generally useful overall. Additionally, the fighter had access to many abilities that were previously unheard of (come and get it, easy access to whirlwind type attacks, the ability to damage knockback and knockprone multiple enemies at once, and access to conditions that had previously been only in the domain of spellcasters). On top of that by the very nature of these abilities not being usable at-will, fights were more dynamic. The fighter had to choose the appropriate time to utilize his maneuvers to maximize their effect.

Also unlike pre 4e D&D the fighter had a number of at-will capabilities to choose from each with a different outcome. In 3e for example to be effective at tripping you had to invest the majority of your feats into tripping and use a specific weapon. In 4e you simply needed to choose one of many maneuvers available to you. This prevented combats from becoming spammy. Additionally, the removal of the full round attack allowed for more movement and more dynamic combats. Combine this with the fact that most attacks were more than "pure damage" you would often see interesting things happen every turn as a fighter.

The 4e fighter also had a number of class features that made combat more interesting. Marking or the defender aura allowed the fighter to exert control on the battlefield that was unachievable in prior editions. The fighter also had the ability to stop foes movement with their opportunity attacks, many ways to slow enemies, and multiple means of knocking them prone, all more readily available than in other editions. These combined allowed the fighter to have a very unique play experience, far different from other classes. It was in 4e that I actually felt the melee classes actually played differently from one another.

Finally between skill utility powers, skill training, martial practices, and a consolidated skill list the fighter had more out of combat utility than ever before. It was still at the bottom of the totem pole in regards to non-combat capabilities though, but was leaps and bounds ahead of its predacessors.
So now we have 5e. The fighter is lacking in tactical depth or resource management that 4e provided. The best fighter maneuvers the 5e fighter can perform are comprable to low level encounter powers in 4e. The fighter has to trade damage for the use of these maneuvers which is generally a bad decision as damage is king. So basically the choices the 5e fighter has are nonexistent - on his turn the best course of action is always do as much damage as possible. To top things off the 5e  fighter has way less out of combat than the 4e fighter. I would put the 5e fighter on par with the 3e fighter in terms of interesting things it is capable of in and out of combat. I was ok playing a game like that 10 years ago, but today I want more. I want to have interesting choices to make in combat, I want to have maneuvers that do "heroic" things, and I want a fighter who has more options and more capabilites at level 20 than the 4e fighter had at level 1.
Good thing the fighter in 5e has multiple fighting styles and maneuvers eh?



As many on the thread have already pointed out, the manuevers are rather boring and mundane. As for the weapon abilities I'm talking about, I mean things like axe wielders having "Execute" that maybe allow them to do more damage to prone enemies. Things like that so that when you realize that someone is prone, you get excited about the huge amount of damage you're going to do. This brings up another idea of using abilities in correlation, for example tripping an enemy to make him prone, so you can use the theoretical "Execute" and so on.

The battles can be plenty interesting using the tools available, all you need is a well designed encounter. If there is terrain you can interact with, hazzards you need to avoid or push monsters into, ways to disarm an enemy so its difficult or impossible to recover their weapon, the game can be very interesting regardless of what class you are playing.

In any case, I think 5e will have just as many things to do with your figther as 4e did, except not at launch. They will be releasing lots of modules to add new options and rules to the game, which will flesh it out. As it is, it is a huge improvement from 1e-3e
I've found my players forgoing maneuvers, even some of the better ones, just to do more damage.  I don't like that kind of thinking.  It is somewhat related to roleplaying improvised attacks. "I could dump the boiling hot water over the goblins head, but it's better to just hit him with my axe because it does more damage."  I understand why they have martial damage dice, but I'd like to see a slightly better system worked out.
I've found my players forgoing manuvers, even some of the better ones, just to do more damage.  I don't like that kind of thinking.  It is somewhat related to roleplaying improvised attacks. "I could dump the boiling hot water over the goblins head, but it's better to just hit him with my axe because it does more damage."  I understand why they have martial damage dice, but I'd like to see a slightly better system worked out.



"Somewhat related to roleplaying improvisd attacks"  .........  Funny, that is what I want my players to do - roleplay the fighter, not load up on feats/manuvers and generally just say "I do (insert feat/manuver)"  Just my thoughts
I tend to like to choose whatever ability does the most damage. Its way more fun to do a lot of damage. I find the fighter absolutely flavorless and boring in appearance. I find it that way for most versions of the fighter.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Ahh...the DM's Life. I put the cool stuff in the room for a reason, folks. You don't always have to do use it, but I'd like it if you'd consider doing something creative once in a while.


"You enter a room with a Bugbear leaning over a pit of acid, his back is turned and he doesn't seem to notice you.  Above you is a chandelier that swings freely.  He wears heavy armor and would be a formidable foe.  What do you do?"


"I run up and hit him with my mace."


"Uhh, you sure you don't want do something creative? Like swing from the chandelier, the freaking chandelier?"


"No.  I'll just do this." rolls  "Darn. I missed."

"Okay, fine. The Bugbear grabs you and drops you in the acid.  You're dead.  Screw you, I'm out of here." Pack up books while swearing profusely.
1) Sounds like you want some of the advanced rules which are not created or released yet.

2) Improvised attacks are situational. And unfortunately 50% of the maneuvers are very situational. Add that with DDN's fast fights and spamming regular attacks will be optimal unless the DM real encourages situational actions via placement, terrain, and tactics.

And their are only so many acid vats, cliffs, furnaces, chandeliers, and flippable tables.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Ahh...the DM's Life. I put the cool stuff in the room for a reason, folks. You don't always have to do use it, but I'd like it if you'd consider doing something creative once in a while.


"You enter a room with a Bugbear leaning over a pit of acid, his back is turned and he doesn't seem to notice you.  Above you is a chandelier that swings freely.  He wears heavy armor and would be a formidable foe.  What do you do?"


"I run up and hit him with my mace."


"Uhh, you sure you don't want do something creative? Like swing from the chandelier, the freaking chandelier?"


"No.  I'll just do this." rolls  "Darn. I missed."

"Okay, fine. The Bugbear grabs you and drops you in the acid.  You're dead.  Screw you, I'm out of here." Pack up books while swearing profusely.



Wow, that DM is a jerk.
Ahh...the DM's Life. I put the cool stuff in the room for a reason, folks. You don't always have to do use it, but I'd like it if you'd consider doing something creative once in a while.

"You enter a room with a Bugbear leaning over a pit of acid, his back is turned and he doesn't seem to notice you.  Above you is a chandelier that swings freely.  He wears heavy armor and would be a formidable foe.  What do you do?"

"I run up and hit him with my mace."

"Uhh, you sure you don't want do something creative? Like swing from the chandelier, the freaking chandelier?"

"No.  I'll just do this." rolls  "Darn. I missed."

"Okay, fine. The Bugbear grabs you and drops you in the acid.  You're dead.  Screw you, I'm out of here." Pack up books while swearing profusely.



Actually it tends to go like this:

Swing from Chandelier: fail to make DC 15 Acrobatics check so you fall in the Pit of acid and die. Too bad you aren't a rogue and could afford to train a bunch of skills, learn some skill tricks, get skill mastery, and get ace-in-the-hole to turn your failures into nat 20s. 

Move up to enemy and attack: Bugbear drops in single attack because damage is that out of hand right now...

Where other characters have to give up their attack in order to do anything other than damage, a fighter can deal damage and do something like trip, knockdown, or lunge at your foe (allowing you to attack with reach). You can also do something the 4e fighter never could: disarm your foe. You can also use positioning to stop foes from moving up to the squishy members of your party, or use a reaction to soak up the damage a foe deals to one of your allies with your shield. The fighter doesn't get tricks!? Ok. 

Though, I do think that fighters should be given something like the ability to use X number of maneuvers per encounter without having to spend a MDD (or WDD). But, they have already said that they are finding a way to allow fighters to use maneuvers without having to reduce their damage every time, so there you go. 

Ahh...the DM's Life. I put the cool stuff in the room for a reason, folks. You don't always have to do use it, but I'd like it if you'd consider doing something creative once in a while.

"You enter a room with a Bugbear leaning over a pit of acid, his back is turned and he doesn't seem to notice you.  Above you is a chandelier that swings freely.  He wears heavy armor and would be a formidable foe.  What do you do?"

"I run up and hit him with my mace."

"Uhh, you sure you don't want do something creative? Like swing from the chandelier, the freaking chandelier?"

"No.  I'll just do this." rolls  "Darn. I missed."

"Okay, fine. The Bugbear grabs you and drops you in the acid.  You're dead.  Screw you, I'm out of here." Pack up books while swearing profusely.



Actually it tends to go like this:

Swing from Chandelier: fail to make DC 15 Acrobatics check so you fall in the Pit of acid and die. Too bad you aren't a rogue and could afford to train a bunch of skills, learn some skill tricks, get skill mastery, and get ace-in-the-hole to turn your failures into nat 20s. 

Move up to enemy and attack: Bugbear drops in single attack because damage is that out of hand right now...



Or for safety:

OK guys, volley fire on the Bugbear. Take no chances.

And that example DM is still a jerk. 
Yeah, I can be a jerk, sometimes. Haha.


That was an exaggerated example, of course.  I don't set up things like that in my games, however, I do like to add a lot of opportunity for improvised attacks.  I wouldn't mind it if they are used some of the times.


I do think that damage is out of control right now.  Bugbears and others don't seem enough of a threat.  This could be another reason to drop martial damage die.     
I would much rather have Expertise be an encounter resoure and have it not connected to the fighter's damage. This way the fighter would have to actually make crucial choices about when to use certain maneuvers or not and not worry about the decrease in combat effectiveness.

Note: If maneuvers become encounter based they would of course need a significant buff. 

Where other characters have to give up their attack in order to do anything other than damage, a fighter can deal damage and do something like trip, knockdown, or lunge at your foe (allowing you to attack with reach). You can also do something the 4e fighter never could: disarm your foe. You can also use positioning to stop foes from moving up to the squishy members of your party, or use a reaction to soak up the damage a foe deals to one of your allies with your shield. The fighter doesn't get tricks!? Ok. 

Though, I do think that fighters should be given something like the ability to use X number of maneuvers per encounter without having to spend a MDD (or WDD). But, they have already said that they are finding a way to allow fighters to use maneuvers without having to reduce their damage every time, so there you go. 




Disarm is a joke. It only works on humanoids with weapons. It's worthless against most creatures.
As far as doing damage and something else, well the Wizard gets that with many of their spells. The Rogue gets skill tricks that do that too and Monks and Barbarians also get maneuvers. I'm not really seeing how the Fighter hs any advantage and as others have pointed out 95% of the time its just better to deal the massive damage and kill the thing in a round or two rather than waste time tripping it or pushing it back or any of the other maneuvers. About the only maneuvers that are useful are the ones that allow you to attack multiple enemies or deal damage on a miss...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'd like to make an analysis check on the subject please.

*rolls Intelligence check*

Analysis Check Result
Question

  1. What are the core aesthetics that we seek in D&D regardless of edition?

  2. What are the mechanics that the D&D 4E Fighter have?

  3. How do the mechanics of 4E's Fighter deliver the core aesthetics of D&D?

  4. What are the mechanics that the D&D 5E Fighter have?

  5. How do the mechanics of 5E's Fighter deliver the core aesthetics of D&D?

My Answers

  1. Core aesthetics are as follows:


  • Fantasy. Game as make-believe

  • Challenge. Game as obstacle course

  • Fellowship. Game as social framework

  • Discovery. Game as uncharted territory

  • Expression. Game as self-discovery


  • Features, skills, powers, feats, equipment

  • These mechanics deliver the core aesthetics of D&D in the following ways:


    1. Features


    • By creating a basic set of features that allow you to represent a given archetype (Fantasy)

    • By establishing a role upon which your basic function in a group is expressed (Fellowship)


  • Skills


    • By giving you tools to express your specialization in certain fields (Expression, Fantasy)

    • By allowing you the means to further out of combat functions (Challenge, Discovery)


  • Powers


    • Combat powers grant you the feeling that you have these cool tools you can use to fight off threats (Expression, Challenge)

    • Utility powers grant you what would feel like special tools you can use in a variety of situations (Expression)


  • Feats


    • Customization galore (Expression)


  • Equipment


    • Further self-expression and a feel that you're wielding these deadly tools (Expression, Fantasy)



  • Features, Backgrounds, Maneuvers, Equipment

  • These mechanics deliver the core aesthetics of D&D in the following ways:


    1. Features


    • By creating a basic set of features that allow you to represent a given archetype (Fantasy)


  • Backgrounds


    • By giving you tools to express your specialization in certain fields (Expression, Fantasy)

    • By allowing you the means to further out of combat functions (Challenge, Discovery)


  • Maneuvers


    • Maneuvers grant you the feeling that you have these cool tools you can use to fight off threats (Expression, Challenge)


  • Equipment


    • Further self-expression and a feel that you're wielding these deadly tools (Expression, Fantasy)




    Conclusions
    Based on this analysis, I conclude that: the 5E Fighter is objectively "boring" or "less fun", because it has less means to deliver the core aesthetics sought after in D&D.


    • Expression


      • 4E allows you to customize your character from level 1 to level 30, whereas 5E allows you to customize your character from level 1 to level 10 unless you're a spellcaster (in which case you get to customize your character all the way to level 17)


        • 4E Fighters could upgrade or replace their encounter or daily attack powers at higher levels, whereas 5E Fighters basically just added more maneuvers and got more martial dice

        • While 5E Fighter maneuvers are much more customizable than 4E encounter and daily powers, there are a couple of problems with the mechanics involved:


          • At-Will Nature.  The reason "I attack" is an expression to the boring nature of Fighter design is exactly because it's simply not worth thinking about something you're going to do repeatedly.  Even in 4E with its limited powers form, certain party configurations are so effective, there's a likely "standard operating procedure" thing going on that would make players go through combat with rote memorization rather than with a more exciting approach.  How much more if you have one class who has virtually no limitations on his abilities?

          • Depth vs. Complexity.  A high amount of depth for a relatively low level of complexity is something that 4E executed astoundingly well even for its excessively simple Essentials classes, and apparently where 5E fails to achieve.  Depth is the choices a person could consider, while Complexity being the mechanics he has to juggle around in order to determine what he could do.  Now, looking at the 4E Slayer we see that it is designed around at-will stances, basic attacks, and a limited resource Power Strike, which is also customizable via feats.  Comparing the complexity and depth of that design with the 5E Fighter's super-customizable basic attacks, all I'm seeing is that in spite of the fact that you can easily have more than 10 choices per turn with the 5E Fighter, there isn't actually that much depth to the class: Just like the 4E slayer who ran out of Power Strike uses, you're simply better off picking a maneuver/stance and sticking with it, and sometimes it's best to just not use maneuvers at all.


        • The fact that feats in 5E are optional, and assuming the DM allows them there are only 3 feats to acquire, makes for some pretty poor customization if you ask me.



    • Fantasy


      • Actually 5E still delivers on this quite well; in fact, it delivers this better than in 4E in some ways.

      • Here's the problem though: the way I see it, 5E delivers it better through Backgrounds, not Classes.


        • An explanation is in order: even though classes are supposedly archetypes (Beowulf, Hercules, Merlin, etc.), the fact remains that most of the "flavor" is found in the Backgrounds, and most of what we discuss about classes surround mechanics rather than specific archetypes.  You don't pick "Fighter" to represent a Soldier, you pick the Soldier background then pick a class to represent what sort of soldier you were.  You don't pick "Fighter" to represent a Commoner, you pick the Commoner background then pick a class to represent what sort of commoner you were.  I could even argue that Conan the Barbarian was actually a Rogue who had "Barbarian" as his background and just so happened to pick up a lot of CON and STR in his character rolls.



    • Challenge


      • I'd blame monster design comparative to PC capabilities combined with 5E Rogue class design for this.  While 4E monsters were HP bloats, the system was overall designed with the intent that monsters would be less deadly and could last longer than PCs, so that they could be adequately challenged in combat, and in the meantime outside combat the intent was that everyone would be challenged as opposed to just a few in the group (not that System Mastery couldn't be used to give a 10+ gap between characters).  5E monsters are clearly not scaled to compare with PC capabilities HP-wise (they did say that they'd work on the monster math later), and not only do Rogues get twice as many skills as any other class, they even get to roll their skill die twice, which means that not only is the Fighter the least trained in out-of-combat scenarios, even with the tools he could use there's not much reason for him to be in the same room as the Rogue when non-combat situations come into play (except to guard the Rogue).


        • Honestly, why does the Rogue get class-exclusive backgrounds and get backgrounds twice?



    • Fellowship


      • Roles are often criticized in 4E, and I can't blame the more vocal traditionalists for that.  But I do see the positive part of the whole thing: it does help emphasize the social aspect of the game, since each class does have its own function in the game.

      • 5E does actually have roles built into it, and it's not too hard to find it, but the fact that, in an effort to please those who value Expression more than Fellowship, they actually buried those roles deep into the classes, is sort of saddening.  Sort of.


        • For instance, while the 5E Fighter can be a damage-dealer, it is objectively inferior to all other classes in the damage-dealing classes when it comes to direct damage.  However, if you look at the most optimal use of the Fighter, his best combos involve ensuring that his allies don't go down before he does.  That basically screams "defender", but without the role label.

        • The 5E Fighter could make for a decent "controller" too, given its current design.



    • Discovery


      • This is more campaign-based than system-based, so all TRPGs are tied on this one by default.  However, the fact that a Rogue almost consistently makes for a better scout than a Fighter is a bit disheartening, especially given the classical representation of the Fighter being in front.






    Now I understand how this is a limited perspective on the subject, and can be criticized and deemed wrong at certain points, but the facts that the 5E Fighter has


    • less number of in-combat tools with greater complexity but not as much depth

    • no class-based out-of-combat tools

    • less defined function/role as a class and as a member of a group

    • overall less customizability


    when compared to the 4E Fighter does seem to explain why the 5E Fighter might be boring, even though "boring" is a very subjective term.

    Show

    You are Red/Blue!
    Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
    Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

    You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

    D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

    57047238 wrote:
    If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
    I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
    This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
    wel a example of one manuver I think is to weak to be worth it is trip.
    costs 1 damage dice
    It is only usefull if you have a ally that can make a melee atack against the target before it is that targets turn.
    if this not the case the only thing you achieve is reducing movement of the target by 5 feet, in many cases if you trip at range this would not even be enough to prevent a target from escaping

    if getting up frome prone would take 15 or 20 feet of movement it mignt be worth it

     

    [Trip] is only usefull if you have a ally that can make a melee atack against the target before it is that targets turn.


     


    Which you can pretty much ensure is always the case if you have 2 melee combatants in the group...
    What is with all these Fighter bashing threads? Do you even play a fighter, bro? 

    Yesterday I roleplay a 5lv fighter who fights with only a knife. I had a lot of fun. 
    I can grab enemies with my free hand, disarm and put the enemy's weapon in my free hand, 
    and trip. My goal is not to do damage, but to debuff my enemies as much as possible. 

    If the fighter is so boring to you than play another class, because I like my fighter the way it is. 
    The fighter could use a little something extra for 11-20th lv, but the rest is fine. 





     


    Disarm is a joke. It only works on humanoids with weapons.



    And yet, it is funny how people claimed it would be overpowered in 4e.


    As far as doing damage and something else, well the Wizard gets that with many of their spells. The Rogue gets skill tricks that do that too and Monks and Barbarians also get maneuvers. I'm not really seeing how the Fighter hs any advantage and as others have pointed out 95% of the time its just better to deal the massive damage and kill the thing in a round or two rather than waste time tripping it or pushing it back or any of the other maneuvers. About the only maneuvers that are useful are the ones that allow you to attack multiple enemies or deal damage on a miss...


    Barbarians don't get maneuvers. Monks do, but they use their own list, and can't do the same things as fighters (for the most part). Wizard spells can do damage and an effect, but the amount of damage and the effect are pre-coded. Meanwhile, rogues can't mix and match multiple effects the way a fighter can; they can only ever use one skill trick at a time. Fighter's have areas of the game where they have an advantage over each of those classes, though what that advantage is will depend on what class we are talking about. And your percentile evaluation says less about the state of the game and more about your perspective.

    But, as I said, there are some elements that need to be tweaked. I am looking forward to seeing how they will allow fighter’s to use maneuvers without losing damage every time one is used. 






    Disarm is a joke. It only works on humanoids with weapons.



    And yet, it is funny how people claimed it would be overpowered in 4e.



    In 4e because of the proficiency bonus, the required enhancement bonus, expertise, and other factors losing a weapon meant losing out on up to 13 points of accuracy. Requiring an action to draw or pick up your weapon would also mean a missed turn to attack.

    5e is much more lenient in regards to disarming. In 5e drawing weapons is a free action and weapons have no proficiency bonus or assumed enhancement bonus. So in 5e, at worst a humanoid enemy or player switches to a dagger and loses 2 to 3 points of damage. That is almost nothing compared to the damage things can dish out in 5e.

    P.S. in our 4e games we utilize "cinematic disarming" as an improvised action. When someone is disarmed (opposed attack rolls) the disarmed creature is dazed. This represents them using a few seconds to grab their weapon. Dazed works well here because they cannot take opportunity attacks or reactions as they have no weapon, they grant combat advantage as they are unable to use their weapon to defend themself, and they only get a single action as they rest of their turn is devoted to retreiving their weapon. 


      

    From the start I am going to say I only semi agree with this statement that the fighter is boring.


    Maneuvers at the moment are highly situational, and rather underpowered compared to doing straight damage. People seem to see this as the generally accepted consensus. Why would I give up damage to add an effect, like knockdown? 

    Then people compare it to 4e which had cool powers at most levels, which are nothing like the at will Fighter presented in the Next Playtest.

    Well I would tend to disagree with this statement.

    Out of the original 4e Fighter presented in PHB1 it had the following At Wills and encounters to the following effect. Most can be done At Will by the 5e Fighter.

    Cleave - Deals 1[W] to one enemy and additional damage to adjacent enemy - Was covered by Cleave maneuvers in the previous packet

    Reaping Strike  - Deals damage on a missed attack - Covered by Glancing Blow

    Sure Strike - Trade damage for hit chance - NOT REPRESENTED (Might be a good Fighter Feature)
       
    Tide of Iron - Make an attack and push the target - Covered by Shove Away

    Covering Attack - Make an attack, let an ally shift - NOT REPRESENTED (Probably better for Warlord anyway)

    Passing Strike - Make an attack against two seperate creatures - Will be covered by Multiple Attacks (Hopefully)

    Spinning Sweep - Make an attack, knock target prone - Covered by Trip

    Steel Serpent Strike  - Make an attack, slow target - NOT REPRESENTED (I would like to see it so).

    Covering Attack and Steel Serpent Strike are the only two that do not forgoe damage to make their attack (I think the latter probably should have). Having said this, I have never seen a Fighter player who has taken a straight max damage attack instead of one of the 1[W] attacks with an extra effect. And people playing the Next Fighter seem to only use the straight damage - when they are getting an option, equivalent to a 4e encounter power that they can use every turn.

    I'm just not quite sure why.

    (That said, I think standing up should probably take a full move action.)

    So I don't know, I think the Next Fighter has an awesome amount of potential, and that some people just are not seeing it. Sure, they need to work at a few of the maneuvers, and add some more, and make some better, but this is something that will happen with time.



    I certainly hope that they look towards the 4e Fighter encounter powers as they continue to develop maneuvers.

    Just looking at the level 3 Encounter Powers makes me intrigued. Maybe giving up dice for an accuracy bonus (Precise Strike), or increasing the power of Whirlwind Attack (Sweeping Blow), a sunder-esque effect (Griffon's Wrath), one that lets you trade dice for an AC bonus (Iron Bulwark).

    Latter tier maneuvers coulld even Daze (Anvil of Doom), increase the effectiveness of Spring Attack with more dice spent (Harrying Assault) or allow extra opportunity attacks against creatures near you (Warriors Challenge).

    I for one am excited where the Next Fighter is going at least in the maneuver department.


    I guess the next step is giving them a mark ability, and fleshing out the Combat Surge a bit further.  
    the whole point of dnd and where the fun is is in the role playing the skills are secondary to that. you can do so much if you want to do somthing unusual make your dm work for his living and tell you how you can do that ie what skill check to make ect. also the fact that this is a playtest and the information your seeing is probably less than 10 percent of what the finished class will be like. who knows maybe all these issues will be resolved once the complete class is done. i dont play fighters myself i like wizards or thieves but my friends that do never say its boring to play them


    Disarm is a joke. It only works on humanoids with weapons.



    And yet, it is funny how people claimed it would be overpowered in 4e.




    I just found that it was a Level 17 Encounter Power for the Fighter in 4e. Now it is a Level 1 At Will. :D  
    I wrote the below response in another thread. The TL/DR version is that while the 5e fighter has a lot of maneuvers available, they are all rather mundane and uninspiring. At level 1 a 4e fighter could do basically everything a level 20 5e fighter can and more.

     
    Show
    In pre 4e and in 5e, the most effective route to overcoming any combat is simply dealing damage. You could of course improvise, but unless you had a fairly lenient GM the penalties incurred were often no worth the trade off in damage. Pre 4e D&D also had relatively poor guidelines for improvised actions.
    In 4e, fighters gained a number of signature maneuvers that they could attempt each fight in the form of encounter powers. While some were similar to their 3e predecessors (an attack that damages a foe and knocks them prone for example has parallels to the trip feats) they benefitted in that there was neither a size restriction or an opposed roll. This allowed these abilites to be more generally useful overall. Additionally, the fighter had access to many abilities that were previously unheard of (come and get it, easy access to whirlwind type attacks, the ability to damage knockback and knockprone multiple enemies at once, and access to conditions that had previously been only in the domain of spellcasters). On top of that by the very nature of these abilities not being usable at-will, fights were more dynamic. The fighter had to choose the appropriate time to utilize his maneuvers to maximize their effect.

    Also unlike pre 4e D&D the fighter had a number of at-will capabilities to choose from each with a different outcome. In 3e for example to be effective at tripping you had to invest the majority of your feats into tripping and use a specific weapon. In 4e you simply needed to choose one of many maneuvers available to you. This prevented combats from becoming spammy. Additionally, the removal of the full round attack allowed for more movement and more dynamic combats. Combine this with the fact that most attacks were more than "pure damage" you would often see interesting things happen every turn as a fighter.

    The 4e fighter also had a number of class features that made combat more interesting. Marking or the defender aura allowed the fighter to exert control on the battlefield that was unachievable in prior editions. The fighter also had the ability to stop foes movement with their opportunity attacks, many ways to slow enemies, and multiple means of knocking them prone, all more readily available than in other editions. These combined allowed the fighter to have a very unique play experience, far different from other classes. It was in 4e that I actually felt the melee classes actually played differently from one another.

    Finally between skill utility powers, skill training, martial practices, and a consolidated skill list the fighter had more out of combat utility than ever before. It was still at the bottom of the totem pole in regards to non-combat capabilities though, but was leaps and bounds ahead of its predacessors.
    So now we have 5e. The fighter is lacking in tactical depth or resource management that 4e provided. The best fighter maneuvers the 5e fighter can perform are comprable to low level encounter powers in 4e. The fighter has to trade damage for the use of these maneuvers which is generally a bad decision as damage is king. So basically the choices the 5e fighter has are nonexistent - on his turn the best course of action is always do as much damage as possible. To top things off the 5e  fighter has way less out of combat than the 4e fighter. I would put the 5e fighter on par with the 3e fighter in terms of interesting things it is capable of in and out of combat. I was ok playing a game like that 10 years ago, but today I want more. I want to have interesting choices to make in combat, I want to have maneuvers that do "heroic" things, and I want a fighter who has more options and more capabilites at level 20 than the 4e fighter had at level 1.



    +1 to this post.
    I just found that it was a Level 17 Encounter Power for the Fighter in 4e. Now it is a Level 1 At Will. :D  



    Best part about it, no saves. Besides, how often do people carry back up weapons? 


    Yeah, not many of the monsters do. And most PCs I see play with generally their main weapon, ranged weapon and maybe a dagger or two. It's pretty crippling.
    If disarm is a standard at-will then players will have at least 2 or 3 weapons, and this will extend over to monsters. It is just the natural cycle, and the next step is players will have their weapons fastened with some type of tether.

    Disarm is the equivalent of counter spell for a caster, and it gets annoying after a while, just like the trip specialist. I would prefer these types of maneuvers be associated with specialization or weapons that promote that type of use so you can have real trade offs with different types of weapons like a whip, staff, sword catcher, etc.  
    Yeah, not many of the monsters do. And most PCs I see play with generally their main weapon, ranged weapon and maybe a dagger or two. It's pretty crippling.



    So no PCs or monsters ever carry daggers? Going from a d8 to a d4 weapon is a loss of 2 points of damage. When you are doing d4+6d6+25 that 2 points of damage doesn't make a difference.

    You know what has been proven to make a difference though? Not spending your dice on disarm and just killing the monster that much faster... 
    Yeah, not many of the monsters do. And most PCs I see play with generally their main weapon, ranged weapon and maybe a dagger or two. It's pretty crippling.



    So no PCs or monsters ever carry daggers? Going from a d8 to a d4 weapon is a loss of 2 points of damage. When you are doing d4+6d6+25 that 2 points of damage doesn't make a difference.

    You know what has been proven to make a difference though? Not spending your dice on disarm and just killing the monster that much faster... 



    If you saw my post above, the point I am trying to make is that this is what 4e Encounter Powers were. Just a loss of damage for an extra effect. Level 1 the base encounter power is 2[W] damage. But this is reduced to add extra effects, either to make them prone, make a secondary attack, to slow the target, to grant yourself advantage, to slide the target a square or to increase your chance to hit, or your defences.

    That is all 4e encounter powers were. Max damage with an almost insignificant effect, or reduce the damage by a step or two to give an additional effect. I know in our groups, almost everyone took the effects rather than the damage. So what has changed?

    Oh, and hopefully with the shifting to [W] damage from the MDD instead of d6, that should solve the whole 'Dagger only does 2 less' problem.  
    Part of me wishs that Jab stayed a maenuver or if Sure Strike or some sort of accuracy manuver was added to the fighter's list.

    I did a quick test with a player and the barbarian and he had fun deciding whether to do a normal attack or reckless attack. Because he did full damage either way, decided whether he would risk punishment for accuracy was "crazy fun".

    Same with the rogue in my last playtest that had to think about sacrificing advantage for double damage.

    If the fighter had a few more attacks that were not so situational then maybe fighters might a little more fun.

    I was wondering using Street Fighter's light, medium, heavy paradigm.

    Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

    Yeah, not many of the monsters do. And most PCs I see play with generally their main weapon, ranged weapon and maybe a dagger or two. It's pretty crippling.



    So no PCs or monsters ever carry daggers? Going from a d8 to a d4 weapon is a loss of 2 points of damage. When you are doing d4+6d6+25 that 2 points of damage doesn't make a difference.

    You know what has been proven to make a difference though? Not spending your dice on disarm and just killing the monster that much faster... 



    If you saw my post above, the point I am trying to make is that this is what 4e Encounter Powers were. Just a loss of damage for an extra effect. Level 1 the base encounter power is 2[W] damage. But this is reduced to add extra effects, either to make them prone, make a secondary attack, to slow the target, to grant yourself advantage, to slide the target a square or to increase your chance to hit, or your defences.

    That is all 4e encounter powers were. Max damage with an almost insignificant effect, or reduce the damage by a step or two to give an additional effect. I know in our groups, almost everyone took the effects rather than the damage. So what has changed?

    Oh, and hopefully with the shifting to [W] damage from the MDD instead of d6, that should solve the whole 'Dagger only does 2 less' problem.



    On page 1 I gave an analysis on what has changed that made the "effects" more interesting and useful in 4e compared to 5e. Go read that for a full analysis.
    You can also do something the 4e fighter never could: disarm your foe.



    Whoa whoa whoa.

    Whoa.

    Let's not forget a certain incredible 4e power called EXORCISM OF STEEL, mmmkay? 
    You can also do something the 4e fighter never could: disarm your foe.



    Whoa whoa whoa.

    Whoa.

    Let's not forget a certain incredible 4e power called EXORCISM OF STEEL, mmmkay? 


    Or improvised actions from page 42! 

    So you telling me downgrading from 1d12 to 1d4 won't effect much? 
    That is a 4 damage lost right there. If that weapon is magically, well that sucks. 

    That 4 lost of DPS can make or break a battle, just saying. 



     
    So you telling me downgrading from 1d12 to 1d4 won't effect much? 
    That is a 4 damage lost right there. If that weapon is magically, well that sucks. 

    That 4 lost of DPS can make or break a battle, just saying.  



    Plus they're moving MDD back to weapon dice and getting rid of MDB, so at level 20 instead of going from 1d12+6d6+25 to 1d4+6d6+25, you'll be going from something like 5d12+5 (avg 37.5) to 5d4+5 (avg 17.5). Ouch!
    So you telling me downgrading from 1d12 to 1d4 won't effect much? 
    That is a 4 damage lost right there. If that weapon is magically, well that sucks. 

    That 4 lost of DPS can make or break a battle, just saying.



    Bolded for lols! So you admit that trading out a dice of damage for the disarm maneuver isn't worth it right? I mean you lose out on about 4 damage by not just dealing straight damage.