Time to Dump Fighter Styles?


 While Samrin  and myself  seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time throwing rocks at each other we had an interesting discussion on another thread regarding the fighters out of combat abilities or lack thereof outside his 4 skills everyone else gets.


 The fighter styles are more or less optional anyway so the manuveurs can stay and you just pick them from a unified list. Basically we turn the styles into somehting similar to the Cleric domains. Each style is a varient class more or less and one can use the 2nd ed kits and 4th ed utility powers maybe tweaked into at wills for inspiration for out of combat abilites.

 One does not have to turn the fighter into a skill monkey and some of the OOC things can be small like extra languages or whatever.

 For example perhaps a Knight gets a bonus or advanatage on ride and knowlede:heraldry type checks. A swashbuckler could get it on acrobatics and diplomacy. Small mechancal benefits could be inculded as a noble for example can start with extra money or better armor etc. The main focus would be out of combat stuff though.

 The fighter must be basic mentality is more of a 3rd ed things as in 3nd ed they got almost as many NWP as everyone else and even in 1st ed they got followers and could raise taxes etc and NWP came along in the Wilderness Survival Guide. The 3rd ed fighter was actually gimped/nerfed from 2nd ed, 4th ed kind of retuned his skills up to something similar to the other classes and added utility powers.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

That doesn't really sound like "dumping" Fighting Styles, it sounds like repurposing them (or, honestly, purposing them in the first place).


I do agree, though, that something should be done with them.  Make them more robust or introduce other features entirely or just... I don't know.  Something.  Right now they look like padding to make the Fighter entry look less bare-bones than it already does look in the class folder. 

And everyone I've shown the more recent packets to has had some degree of "Wait, why does Fighting Style not actually do anything, when Domains and Traditions and Schemes and Monastic Traditions all have, y'know, effects?"
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)
Can I try and somewhat "simplify" your point?

fighters should get a background (just like everyone else) AND a MILITARY background
does that sound right ?
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
So something along the lines of a Fighter equivilant to the Rogue's current Scheme feature?
Kinda of yes. More like 2nd ed kits though and with more focus on OOC stuff. Like how Cleric domains are really class varients. A swashbuckler may not now how to even use heavy armor.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Anything that can make them different and get sme out of combat utility I'd be perfectly happy with.
Kinda of yes. Mor elike 2nd ed kits though and with more focus on OOC stuff. Like how Cleric domains are really class varients. A swashbuckler may not now how to even use heavy armor.


That's pretty close to Rogue Schemes, honestly.  EDIT: Which isn't a bad thing.
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)
I concur.

Fighting Styles as they currently stand look more like a mechanic for assisting character construction in the Basic game.

For Standard they need to do more.

Adding a few flavourful and relevant bonuses for exploration and interaction (maybe one of each per style, or two from one for more focused characters) would be ideal.

And no-one can complain about flavour being "forced" into the generic Fighter, a single line could allow for "make your own with DM approval" Styles to cover ANY possible character. 
This sounds less like dumping and more like "give the Fighting Styles more flavor by adding in more skills and maybe a cool background-style gimmick" which I'm totally down for.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I feel one way to handle it would be backgrounds only give you 3 skills and class style gives you 2, except Rogue gets 4.

Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

this would be a great way to address the out of combat fighter. I need to go read more about 2e kits.


(...)
Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.


In these times of decreased civilities, and overinflated egos I felt this needed to be quoted. That's cool 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com

(...)
Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.


In these times of decreased civilities, and overinflated egos I felt this needed to be quoted. That's cool 



That quote means almost nothing. The issue isn't that the Fighter gets nothing, but that the Fighter gets nothing in comparison to other classes. Taking the complaint out of context is setting up a strawman.
...whatever
As to armor and shield proficiency I like the idea of Fighters not automatically having them or trading them for more feats or maneuvers. True20 was a great example of how to handle this. 3 classes (Warrior, Expert, Adept) and 4 feat types (General, Warrior, Expert, Adept). Select 4 feats at level 1 from General and Class feats. You could select all General feats if you so desired. Only Warriors could access Heavy Armor or Weapon Specialization, only Experts could access Sneak Attack or Evasion, only Adepts could access Spell Powers. You could build a cool Expert without Sneak Attack or a Warrior without Heavy Armor. Even Adepts could be effective without focusing all feats on Spell Powers.
I think this approach would help D&D Next. The mechanics are unified, its the class options and build possibilities that need to be simplified at this point. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.


(...)
Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.


In these times of decreased civilities, and overinflated egos I felt this needed to be quoted. That's cool 



That quote means almost nothing. The issue isn't that the Fighter gets nothing, but that the Fighter gets nothing in comparison to other classes. Taking the complaint out of context is setting up a strawman.


HUH???? 

I was GENUINELY commending him on the part where he said  that he felt a certain way, but UNDERSTOOD THE NOTION OF COMPROMISE.
Here is someone that said: I feel X, but since a lot of people feel Y, I might just try and help constructively with their idea. 
I don't care what you think on this issue, a comment like yours is exactly what I was saying his wasn't. 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com

(...)
Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.


In these times of decreased civilities, and overinflated egos I felt this needed to be quoted. That's cool 



That quote means almost nothing. The issue isn't that the Fighter gets nothing, but that the Fighter gets nothing in comparison to other classes. Taking the complaint out of context is setting up a strawman.

Did you think it was a good suggestion?
These forums are about opinion, but I offered a possible solution with my opinion. What is your suggestion? Or will you only offer criticism?  

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.


(...)
Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.


In these times of decreased civilities, and overinflated egos I felt this needed to be quoted. That's cool 



That quote means almost nothing. The issue isn't that the Fighter gets nothing, but that the Fighter gets nothing in comparison to other classes. Taking the complaint out of context is setting up a strawman.


HUH???? 

I was GENUINELY commending him on the part where he said  that he felt a certain way, but UNDERSTOOD THE NOTION OF COMPROMISE.
Here is someone that said: I feel X, but since a lot of people feel Y, I might just try and help constructively with their idea. 
I don't care what you think on this issue, a comment like yours is exactly what I was saying his wasn't. 



He sets up a strawman and then tries to paint himself as a good guy while offering no solution.
...whatever

(...)
Personally I think the notion of fighters getting no RP options is not a valid one because the RP option comes from your Background choice, but I also understand the notion of compromise.


In these times of decreased civilities, and overinflated egos I felt this needed to be quoted. That's cool 



That quote means almost nothing. The issue isn't that the Fighter gets nothing, but that the Fighter gets nothing in comparison to other classes. Taking the complaint out of context is setting up a strawman.


HUH???? 

I was GENUINELY commending him on the part where he said  that he felt a certain way, but UNDERSTOOD THE NOTION OF COMPROMISE.
Here is someone that said: I feel X, but since a lot of people feel Y, I might just try and help constructively with their idea. 
I don't care what you think on this issue, a comment like yours is exactly what I was saying his wasn't. 



He sets up a strawman and then tries to paint himself as a good guy while offering no solution.


Seriously, grow a thicker skin: I don't even agree with him on the OPINION he stated, and I still feel his contribution is worthwile. And he did offer a solution (I did not quote it as I was trying to draw attention to the part where he said compromises are cool) 

did you?
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Kinda of yes. More like 2nd ed kits though and with more focus on OOC stuff. Like how Cleric domains are really class varients. A swashbuckler may not now how to even use heavy armor.



Hey, I swashbuckle in full plate with a great maul all the time.  Just like Errol Flynn and the Three Musketeers did.  
My swashbuckler dual wields blasters and wears mandalorian battle armor. Erm oops nvrmind.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I don't know if fighting styles, as they are currently, are even a net positive when it comes to avoiding confusion. I've also heard the "Wait, so does the fighting style do anything? Do I get these things either way?" questions.

I actually think that you could fix that with a little bit of extra rewording in the paragraphs that introduce them (they're most of the way there, they just leave enough room for interpretation that it's possible to misunderstand), but I'd of course also be excited to see them actually do something. (Although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
My swashbuckler dual wields blasters and wears mandalorian battle armor. Erm oops nvrmind.


The engine for DDN should be able to support that.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

My swashbuckler dual wields blasters and wears mandalorian battle armor. Erm oops nvrmind.


The engine for DDN should be able to support that.



 That is more a d20 thing, not a D&D thing. They done that in 3rd ed days (d20 Modern, Furture, Spycraft, SWSE etc).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

My swashbuckler dual wields blasters and wears mandalorian battle armor. Erm oops nvrmind.


The engine for DDN should be able to support that.



 That is more a d20 thing, not a D&D thing. They done that in 3rd ed days (d20 Modern, Furture, Spycraft, SWSE etc).


That's very much part of what I mean though.  They don't need to make a separate rpg for this.  They just need to give us a genre book filled with modules for modern/near future/future play.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Without an OGL though I do not really see it happening. IDK how well the offical WoTC varients fared (d20 modern, future etc). SWSE the license rane out and it seems FFG got a good deal with new SW movies in the pipeline and they are releasing in 2015 apparently.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Without an OGL though I do not really see it happening. IDK how well the offical WoTC varients fared (d20 modern, future etc). SWSE the license rane out and it seems FFG got a good deal with new SW movies in the pipeline and they are releasing in 2015 apparently.


Right, but those variants were separate games.  If they build the genre book on the DDN engine, then they will use the PHB, DMG, and MM instead of a separate core book.  That very much changes the business equation.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Yes Monk Paths are worse.
There are too many visions of the monk, from martial to full supernatural, to get rid of monk paths.
I agree with the original poster. At present Fighting Styles are listed as a class feature when they are not anything more than a grouping of options. This is confusing and a missed opportunity for added flavour, in contrast to Rogue schemes and Cleric deities etc.

Unfortunately Fighting Styles are not even very good as a grouping of options. So, for example, the Duelist suggests the Deflect feat, when as a Fighter they already have Parry which is most often superior [and uses the same reaction] and moreover the Duelist cannot even use as a Rapier is not a light weapon?
Form a design standpoint it makes sense, because the fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue are the core classes, and other classes should be more focused. So in theory the fighter should take the monk approach and try to emulate different styles, where the monk being more focused should take the current fighter approach by creating basic combat ability like unarmed block, multiple attacks, push, throw, etc. to emulate as many monk concepts as possible while keeping it simple.
Sorry, don't get me wrong, I think they are a great idea in principle. However they are implemented poorly, and without it seems, in some cases a working knowledge of the rules? 
Maybe a better explanation is a comprehensive understanding of what type of fighters existed throughout D&D and trying to capture those in the fighter class in 5E. The current focus is too narrow, with the design goal of making the fighter simple. That above all else, locks us into a very specific viewpoint of what a fighter could be.
I detest Parry, as a Class Feature.


It could easily be handled the same way Sneak Attack is on Rogues - as a part of a grouping of different abilities, where each [whatever you want to call it if you don't use 'Fighting Styles' as the name] has one associated with 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)

 While Samrin  and myself  seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time throwing rocks at each other we had an interesting discussion on another thread regarding the fighters out of combat abilities or lack thereof outside his 4 skills everyone else gets.


 The fighter styles are more or less optional anyway so the manuveurs can stay and you just pick them from a unified list. Basically we turn the styles into somehting similar to the Cleric domains.



I've been advocating something like this for months now.  As is, Fighting Styles are phantom class features that do absolutely nothing.  This NEEDS to be fixed.

The Duelist Style could bump up the damage die of finesse weapons and improve AC in Light Armor, the Protector could have some kind of Marking ability and bonuses with the Parry feature, the Sharpshooter could bump up the damage die of ranged weapons (elven sharpshooters with longbows would be SCARY... as they should be) and extra ranged stunts, the Slayer could reclaim its STR-damage-on-a-miss ability, and the Veteran could have its murder dice refresh at both the start AND end of its turn and have all-passive abilities.

All Styles would offer a couple bonus skills related to their disciplines and further non-maneuver abilities that would be acquired at higher levels.

Finally, all Fighters would be able to learn new maneuvers in the way Wizard's learn new spells, thus opening the door to corner-case and OOC stunts that no one would ever choose given the current set-up.  Styles would simply determine which maneuvers you get for free just by leveling up.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module


 While Samrin  and myself  seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time throwing rocks at each other we had an interesting discussion on another thread regarding the fighters out of combat abilities or lack thereof outside his 4 skills everyone else gets.


 The fighter styles are more or less optional anyway so the manuveurs can stay and you just pick them from a unified list. Basically we turn the styles into somehting similar to the Cleric domains.



I've been advocating something like this for months now.  As is, Fighting Styles are phantom class features that do absolutely nothing.  This NEEDS to be fixed.

The Duelist Style could bump up the damage die of finesse weapons and improve AC in Light Armor, the Protector could have some kind of Marking ability and bonuses with the Parry feature, the Sharpshooter could bump up the damage die of ranged weapons (elven sharpshooters with longbows would be SCARY... as they should be) and extra ranged stunts, the Slayer could reclaim its STR-damage-on-a-miss ability, and the Veteran could have its murder dice refresh at both the start AND end of its turn and have all-passive abilities.

All Styles would offer a couple bonus skills related to their disciplines and further non-maneuver abilities that would be acquired at higher levels.

Finally, all Fighters would be able to learn new maneuvers in the way Wizard's learn new spells, thus opening the door to corner-case and OOC stunts that no one would ever choose given the current set-up.  Styles would simply determine which maneuvers you get for free just by leveling up.

+1
I have suggested the idea of a feat that increases weapon die type, but would be cool as a Fighter only feature. I could see Rogues getting it with dagger as well.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.


 While Samrin  and myself  seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time throwing rocks at each other we had an interesting discussion on another thread regarding the fighters out of combat abilities or lack thereof outside his 4 skills everyone else gets.


 The fighter styles are more or less optional anyway so the manuveurs can stay and you just pick them from a unified list. Basically we turn the styles into somehting similar to the Cleric domains.



I've been advocating something like this for months now.  As is, Fighting Styles are phantom class features that do absolutely nothing.  This NEEDS to be fixed.

The Duelist Style could bump up the damage die of finesse weapons and improve AC in Light Armor, the Protector could have some kind of Marking ability and bonuses with the Parry feature, the Sharpshooter could bump up the damage die of ranged weapons (elven sharpshooters with longbows would be SCARY... as they should be) and extra ranged stunts, the Slayer could reclaim its STR-damage-on-a-miss ability, and the Veteran could have its murder dice refresh at both the start AND end of its turn and have all-passive abilities.

All Styles would offer a couple bonus skills related to their disciplines and further non-maneuver abilities that would be acquired at higher levels.

Finally, all Fighters would be able to learn new maneuvers in the way Wizard's learn new spells, thus opening the door to corner-case and OOC stunts that no one would ever choose given the current set-up.  Styles would simply determine which maneuvers you get for free just by leveling up.

+1
I have suggested the idea of a feat that increases weapon die type, but would be cool as a Fighter only feature. I could see Rogues getting it with dagger as well.



Yes, I could easily see two variant Rogue Schemes... a Swashbuckler Scheme that bumped the damage of all Finesse weapons (not just daggers) by one die type and another Assassin Scheme that bumped only daggers by two die types (i.e., they become d8 instead of d4).

The Swashbuckler Rogue and the Duelist Fighter should share a lot of mechanics, honestly, as they both replicate the same archetype with a minor emphasis change.  For instance, I could see both having a feature that allows them to gain both Dexterity and Charisma (Swashbuckler) or Intelligence (Duelist) to AC when not wearing armor, like the Barbarian's Iron Hide.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module


The Duelist Style could bump up the damage die of finesse weapons and improve AC in Light Armor, the Protector could have some kind of Marking ability and bonuses with the Parry feature, the Sharpshooter could bump up the damage die of ranged weapons (elven sharpshooters with longbows would be SCARY... as they should be) and extra ranged stunts, the Slayer could reclaim its STR-damage-on-a-miss ability, and the Veteran could have its murder dice refresh at both the start AND end of its turn and have all-passive abilities.

All Styles would offer a couple bonus skills related to their disciplines and further non-maneuver abilities that would be acquired at higher levels.

Finally, all Fighters would be able to learn new maneuvers in the way Wizard's learn new spells, thus opening the door to corner-case and OOC stunts that no one would ever choose given the current set-up.  Styles would simply determine which maneuvers you get for free just by leveling up.



I really like that. I'd take out the extra ranged stunts and I don't know what you mean by all-passive abilities, since I think the Maneuvers listed should be "suggested," a la Rogue Schemes.  
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.