Why not have two classes for the fighter archetype?

This is a serious question. Fighter is a major archetype, but people are extremely split on how it should work. Some people want the fighter to be a simple class with big attacks and lots of room for improv. Other people want the fighter to have cool powers and utility on par with spellcasters, along with a more complex resource management system. Why not have both in the core book? Call the simple one the fighter and the complex one the warblade, or alternately follow the 4e naming system and call the simple one the slayer and call the complex one the fighter.

I feel like if they want the fighter to appeal to as many people as possible, it is best to go this route. If people prefer the simple, old-school fighter, they can play a simple, old-school fighter. If they want a complex, new-school fighter, they can play a complex, new-school fighter. If groups truly hate one breed of fighter, they can ban it.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
I don't think you need multiple names for a class just because one version has different options than another.
Fighter (basic)
Fighter (standard)
Fighter (advanced)
These three distinctions should be enough.
~shrugs~

Why limit yourself to hard coded fighting abilities, said the role-player.

What can I do? Just swing my axe around, said the battle-mat player.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Because "Tradition" and wadda wadda. In a game of multiple classes like D&D, the "core four" have no reason to exist. They encompass multiple stereotypes, each one deserving of a class on its own right.

That's why we have so many topics asking: "Why isn't the Ranger/Bard/Paladin/Warlord rolled into the Fighter?", "What is the difference between a Cleric and a Paladin?", "Aren't Druids just Nature clerics?" and all that.

The core four are way broader than the other classes. But that doesnt need to be. We could have a multitude of narrower classes, each one with way more flavor and specialization than the C4. OR we could go towards the opposite route, and make a class-less game (my personal favorite, although one that does not sit well with D&D). What makes no sense is standing on the middle ground, having a lot of narrow classes and then some generic ones.

If you want examples...

Figher could be divided into:

Duelist - An agile warrior with a lot of panache and a flavor for light weapons. This guy could have some Charisma-based interaction features (to sway or seduce people) as well as his fighting prowess.

Knight - The true guy in shining armor, with Diplomacy features, very defender-ish, and perhaps a mounted combat feature or build. Oath comes here, too. The Paladin (Divine caster version of the Knight) could be either one build (that grants you spellcasting) or a Multiclass between the Knight and some Divine class.

Sharpshooter - An archery-based class. Other classes might use the bow, this one is centered around it.

Slayer - Big guy with big weapon. Smash first, smash later, ask never. One possible build could be Berserker. Barbarian becomes this dude, but with a nature-ish background.

... and any other we can figure out. These classes are very similar in scope to Ranger / Warlord / Monk, so we could stop asking questions on whether these should be classes.

-----

Rogue becomes Assassin / Rake / Thief-Acrobat / Thug / Tomb Raider / Conman. Similar in scope to Bard / Ranger.

Wizard can be divided into the classic traditions: Evoker (war blaster), Transmuter (shapeshifting dude), Enchanter (plays with other people's minds), Illusionist, Summoner, Necromancer. The difference between Sorcerer (Innate magic) / Wizard (Studied magic) / Warlock (Pact magic) vould be better handled thorugh backgrounds combined with different casting systems.

Cleric... is trickier, but I'd definitely use Healer as a class, as well as Priest (light magic, low armor, anti-undead, could be multiclassed with Knight to make the Paladin), Shaman, Druid...

Good ideas as long as it is kept simple.
....see above....



You make sense.   I probably prefer the 4 core and thats it.   Not classless but rather class is not utterly defining.  I prefer to build into a sharper concept by making choices as I level.  If I want a ranger I take some skills and specializations in bow etc....   Either way then it becomes my conception of the ranger instead of WOTCs.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

....see above....



You make sense.   I probably prefer the 4 core and thats it.   Not classless but rather class is not utterly defining.  I prefer to build into a sharper concept by making choices as I level.  If I want a ranger I take some skills and specializations in bow etc....   Either way then it becomes my conception of the ranger instead of WOTCs.



Agreed.  The problem with subspecializing each class into a separate concept is that the narrower the concept becomes, the less expansive that player can achieve without multiclassing.  

If players want to make one choice that eliminates 95% of their possibilities then you need 20 classes.  If you would prefer that no one choice make such a drastic reduction in the character's potential, then you should advocate fewer choices With greater opportunitiy for expansion within each class.

My goal would be to cover as much ground as possible of all potential characters that one could imagine.  My goal would not be to cover small bits of ground with each class and try to create more and more classes to cover everything.

Because "Tradition" and wadda wadda. In a game of multiple classes like D&D, the "core four" have no reason to exist. They encompass multiple stereotypes, each one deserving of a class on its own right.

That's why we have so many topics asking: "Why isn't the Ranger/Bard/Paladin/Warlord rolled into the Fighter?", "What is the difference between a Cleric and a Paladin?", "Aren't Druids just Nature clerics?" and all that.

The core four are way broader than the other classes. But that doesnt need to be. We could have a multitude of narrower classes, each one with way more flavor and specialization than the C4. OR we could go towards the opposite route, and make a class-less game (my personal favorite, although one that does not sit well with D&D). What makes no sense is standing on the middle ground, having a lot of narrow classes and then some generic ones.

If you want examples...

Figher could be divided into:

Duelist - An agile warrior with a lot of panache and a flavor for light weapons. This guy could have some Charisma-based interaction features (to sway or seduce people) as well as his fighting prowess.

Knight - The true guy in shining armor, with Diplomacy features, very defender-ish, and perhaps a mounted combat feature or build. Oath comes here, too. The Paladin (Divine caster version of the Knight) could be either one build (that grants you spellcasting) or a Multiclass between the Knight and some Divine class.

Sharpshooter - An archery-based class. Other classes might use the bow, this one is centered around it.

Slayer - Big guy with big weapon. Smash first, smash later, ask never. One possible build could be Berserker. Barbarian becomes this dude, but with a nature-ish background.

... and any other we can figure out. These classes are very similar in scope to Ranger / Warlord / Monk, so we could stop asking questions on whether these should be classes.

-----

Rogue becomes Assassin / Rake / Thief-Acrobat / Thug / Tomb Raider / Conman. Similar in scope to Bard / Ranger.

Wizard can be divided into the classic traditions: Evoker (war blaster), Transmuter (shapeshifting dude), Enchanter (plays with other people's minds), Illusionist, Summoner, Necromancer. The difference between Sorcerer (Innate magic) / Wizard (Studied magic) / Warlock (Pact magic) vould be better handled thorugh backgrounds combined with different casting systems.

Cleric... is trickier, but I'd definitely use Healer as a class, as well as Priest (light magic, low armor, anti-undead, could be multiclassed with Knight to make the Paladin), Shaman, Druid...




  Personally, I like the idea.  All editions of D&D have kind of done this anyway with feat chains, kits, and alternate class features.  Just put them in from the beginning.

   Cleric is probably the easiest.  With the whole Deity/Domain thing granting unique armor/weapon proficiencies, skills, and abilities, Clerics have always been a rather varied class.
I don't think that additional classes necessarily narrows class design. That thinking assumes that classes can never overlap in the character concepts they can represent, which is not something that must be true. Clerics and paladins overlap substantially. The existence of the paladin doesn't narrow the range of concepts the cleric can represent, it creates an alternate way of expressing many of those concepts.

I think it is a major benefit to the game when a character concept can be approached from many different angles. For instance, imagine I'm playing 4e and my concept is a clever swashbuckler duelist type. This concept can be represented by a warlord, a tempest fighter, a rogue, or a ranger. All of these classes work rather differently, so I have a lot of ways to express my concept in a way that I find fun.

Having two fighter classes is like having two tubes of green paint, one oil and one acrylic. Both of them are green, but may be more or less useful depending on what it is I'm trying to do exactly. The fact that I have two green paints does not mean that green is now split between two paints. Green is fully present in both paints, and the one's existence does not narrow the other.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
This is a serious question. Fighter is a major archetype, but people are extremely split on how it should work. Some people want the fighter to be a simple class with big attacks and lots of room for improv. Other people want the fighter to have cool powers and utility on par with spellcasters, along with a more complex resource management system. Why not have both in the core book? Call the simple one the fighter and the complex one the warblade, or alternately follow the 4e naming system and call the simple one the slayer and call the complex one the fighter.

I feel like if they want the fighter to appeal to as many people as possible, it is best to go this route. If people prefer the simple, old-school fighter, they can play a simple, old-school fighter. If they want a complex, new-school fighter, they can play a complex, new-school fighter. If groups truly hate one breed of fighter, they can ban it.



Under a fashion, and to my personal perception, they already did.  The 'Fighter' is the heavy warrior with the thick armor and the big weapons, and the 'Rogue' is the nimble warrior with the light weapons and thin armor.

But, yes, I agree with you.  The more options, the better; let the individual groups decide what they want to use.
I will likely get booed, but I would like the fighter done much the way it was in essentials for basic. Obviously modified for 5e....
I will likely get booed, but I would like the fighter done much the way it was in essentials for basic. Obviously modified for 5e....

Boooo....   
;)
Still, it'd be an improvement over most of what we've seen in the packets, so far.

 

 

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

I don't think you need multiple names for a class just because one version has different options than another.
Fighter (basic)
Fighter (standard)
Fighter (advanced)
These three distinctions should be enough.


Truf!
My two copper.
The problem with multiplying classes, as opposed to allowing specialization through feats (or whatever we call the player-selected abilities) is that it prevents players from crafting their own hybrids.

Example: let's say we create a separate "Assassin" class and put a bunch of "quick kill from the shadows" abilities into it.  Are those abilities no longer available to the Rogue class, so that a player who wants some of those abilities, but also some abilities from traditional rogue, doesn't have that choice?


"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Example: let's say we create a separate "Assassin" class and put a bunch of "quick kill from the shadows" abilities into it.  Are those abilities no longer available to the Rogue class, so that a player who wants some of those abilities, but also some abilities from traditional rogue, doesn't have that choice?

Well, in modular multi-classing, you'd just take some Assassin levels to get them.  Feat-based MC'ing, you'd pay the feat tax to swap them in.



 

 

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



Elfcrusher say:


Example: let's say we create a separate "Assassin" class and put a bunch of "quick kill from the shadows" abilities into it.  Are those abilities no longer available to the Rogue class, so that a player who wants some of those abilities, but also some abilities from traditional rogue, doesn't have that choice?


No. because for that is that are people dislike from 3.x edition prestige class. With  the magics words..that Is my class concept...i take two levels of this..and one of another...and two more.
This was the same...i like a rogue, but the assassin have some skills o things that i like, and also is acrobat rogue and have things that like... and you have a rogue, assassin, acrobat that is a frankestein monster with pieces from every subtype, because is ny concept...
The subtypes into a class will be specialitations that define more the class, no a buffete to take fron everyone that i like and that dislike refused.

My issue is that I think all the classes should be roughly in the same teir power wise. I.e. a wizard at level 9 should not be able to do everything better than a 9th level rogue, barbarian, monk, or fighter, and a 9th level cleric or druid should not be equivalent to an 8th level party.

The simple fighter and the not completely useless fighter can't exist in the same teir. Either the simple fighter has enough extra numbers to make up for all of the special affects, maneuvers, stances, etc. that the other classes have, in which case he's likely the next best thing to invincible, or he doesn't in which case it's a total waste of time.
The point of a playtest is to tell people what's wrong with the new stuff.

Accepting crap just because it's what is written wastes everyone's time.

Furthermore DnD, especially 4e was the happy medium. THe rules were coherent and balanced so I could get on with the RP aspects of the game instead of spending my time trying to nerf wish farmers.
nerfing now with a book instead of actualy explaining, why the "wish" isant what you want to run in a campaign?

i disagree that 4th even allows for roleplaying because it specializes the characters to be machines of one use.

no multiclass......you meen im stuck with my job forever?

it removes veriety and implements choices.....like fighter A, B, C and for fighter D  please get our New book.

early d and d came with clear no wish rules. explain how a nerd(wizard)

can handle bieng on the football field? well now he is the equivlant of a cartoon character.....super hero........not a bad thing when you think about survival. but when the wizard is never exausting resourses how can you tell if the player is actualy learning about management. and limitations.

 

Troll king

Here's a much simpler method I think:


  • define the main thematic features of each class throughout the editions

  • summarily create different class features, each of them representing a facet of that thematic feature

  • allow players to choose the class features they like the most

  • balance those class features relative to other class features


Mr. Simple Improv Fighter player can then simply pick the class features that best reflect what he wants, while Mr. Complex Powers-based Fighter player can pick the class features that best reflect what he wants, all without having to create new classes for doing so.

Other classes can also follow suite in terms of class design and development, so that our individual and general ideas on what each class should look like would be satisfied.
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
nerfing now with a book instead of actualy explaining, why the "wish" isant what you want to run in a campaign?

i disagree that 4th even allows for roleplaying because it specializes the characters to be machines of one use.

no multiclass......you meen im stuck with my job forever?

it removes veriety and implements choices.....like fighter A, B, C and for fighter D  please get our New book.

early d and d came with clear no wish rules. explain how a nerd(wizard)

can handle bieng on the football field? well now he is the equivlant of a cartoon character.....super hero........not a bad thing when you think about survival. but when the wizard is never exausting resourses how can you tell if the player is actualy learning about management. and limitations.

 


Actually 4E has hybrid and two methods of multiclassing (see Dragon #421 for the second multiclassing method).  Also, powers and the ability to choose certain class features allowed for varieties within each class; for example, a CON INT Wizard is very much different from a DEX INT Wizard, and a Tempest Fighter works very differently from a Battlerager Fighter or a Brawler Fighter.

A nerd with a six-shooter might not even have to fire more than a single shot to control the entire football field and ensure victory.  Especially if that six-shooter's ammunition tends to obliterate or debilitate entire groups of the opposing team.

As for "player learning about management and limitations", restricting them on a per day basis isn't the only way to do that, you know... 
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
I still think optional modularity can allow for both the simple and complex builds within a single Fighter class.
so to draw the line we impose a schisim of sorts . 

intending to improve on the customization half of us dont aurgue with.
but totaly craping on the work by gary gygax and the human aspect of the game.

class is suspsoted to be in the background of who the person is.

its only a guide for place in society, traing and character development/ values.

same nerd with gun, 1 football to the face, its over, he wasent trained to take a hit.
ask me, 147 pounder in 8 man football. they put me on the line. as nose gaurd, because i was the fastest off the line. my weakbones always remained a problem but growing up doing parkour before i knew what it was helped,

id be a rouge initaly. smart but sly. i was raised by barbarians so i knew how to do certain things more efectively, such as intimidate, or a cross class skill. my coach saw me as a secrete weapon, the afro american in nebraska highschool football, highlighting my dexterity but improving my constution, and strength, so therefore drawing experiences from real life i aurgue as a ad and d fan. and dont let stats run my game,

do you need more stats to tell a good story?

 

Troll king

so to draw the line we impose a schisim of sorts . 

intending to improve on the customization half of us dont aurgue with.
but totaly craping on the work by gary gygax and the human aspect of the game.

class is suspsoted to be in the background of who the person is.

its only a guide for place in society, traing and character development/ values.

same nerd with gun, 1 football to the face, its over, he wasent trained to take a hit.
ask me, 147 pounder in 8 man football. they put me on the line. as nose gaurd, because i was the fastest off the line. my weakbones always remained a problem but growing up doing parkour before i knew what it was helped,

id be a rouge initaly. smart but sly. i was raised by barbarians so i knew how to do certain things more efectively, such as intimidate, or a cross class skill. my coach saw me as a secrete weapon, the afro american in nebraska highschool football, highlighting my dexterity but improving my constution, and strength, so therefore drawing experiences from real life i aurgue as a ad and d fan. and dont let stats run my game,

do you need more stats to tell a good story?

 



First I'm assuming English is not your primary language, as your posts can be hard to interpret, but I'll try to be understanding there.

I've played D&D in every edition ever to come out, plus many of the clones and competitor games. I started at age 7, and I'm 42 now, so 35 years in this hobby (it is truly my life)

Gary Gygax was known to say that a Player's Class and Race are their MOST DEFINING choices. Yes, he encouraged roleplay, and built his game around the premise that role-playing was the primary focus...this is partly why there is a focus on Abstractions like Hit Points instead of more exact rules in that regard....doesn't get in the way of the story being told, you define Hit Points the way you want in each given situation. This is also why D&D, in the Gygax years, was rules lite outside of Combat, focusing 99% of the overall mechanics to the Combat side of things, Allowing people to be more free to interpet the Interaction and Exploration pillars of play. 4e just took that same philosophy and expanded upon it. YES, there is more survivability in 4e, BECAUSE the #1 complaint heard at a D&D table was that 1st level characters, especially Casters, were disposable...not even worth naming until somewhere between 3rd and 5th level.

D&D has never been about simulationism, it is about fantasy. Some people's playstyles encourage as much simulationism as possible, but that was never the intention of D&D...D&D was a modified Wargame (see Chainmail) turned into the pioneer of Role-playing games, and its rules, throughout the editions, were built around facilitating role-playing while providing consistent mechanics so that the most mechanical aspect of the game (Combat) can be as smooth as possible. Over the years, that "consistency" has ebbed and flowed and really, 4e was the culmination of that goal. 

The point of D&D is to allow a group of players to get together and recreate those fantasy stories that we all know and love, from Lord of the Rings, to the Belgariad, to the Rift War Saga (based on R.E.Feist's own Campaign of Midkemia) and thus the rules were developed so that the protagonists...the PCs could do heroic things. A major problem with actuating this goal was the squishiness of low level PCs...and there have been various fixes throughout the years for it. Most notably, people stopped playing at 1st level.

4e is very much D&D, in fact, when I first sat down to run a game of 4e as a DM, I felt like I was back running OD&D for my friends again. ONLY, the DM's job was made much much easier, and the PCs could put a lot more effort into their 1st level characters instead of waiting until they had survived a few levels before investing in bringing them to life.

Another thing 4e did that no other edition of D&D ever did before, was create basic Class Balance across the levels, instead of Low to High Level Pendulum shifting. (Fighters ruled at lower levels, Casters ruled at higher levels, and the sweetspot was the only time they were near equal) because frankly, between high probability of Caster Death at low levels, and Life happening, many games never even made it to higher levels, unless they group started at those higher levels, so it wasn't exactly fair to balance in that manner.

Can the Simple Fighter sit along side the Complex fighter at the same table...I think they can, as the same class...the Simple fighter just has some of the more complex options default chosen for him, or simplified. In example, a Standard type Fighter picks Background, Specialty, Build options, has skills, feats, etc... while a BASIC type fighter uses either Str or Dex as their primary skill determiner, and gets the skill bonus on all checks with that Ability score, instead of build, they get the default option for using their Expertise Dice (which changes from packet to packet right now, but mainly accuracy and damage focused), they get a very light version of specializing (basically pick their weapon type of choice, Sword & Board, 2 Handed, or Ranged) instead of all the options they have in the Standard game. Their choices are baked in, and pre-defined for them, but with the added benefit that if the BASIC fighter does want to customize a little bit, they can always tweak their character to a mid-level of complexity...(Like, instead of choosing the default weapon choices, the BASIC fighter might opt for actually using the Specialties module from Standard, or wanting to build a more Warlord type fighter, might opt for the Aid type Expertise functions over Damage and Accuracy choices)

I'm a little long winded, I apologize for that, but it does get under the skin when people try to claim that 4e wasn't D&D/D&D-like at all, just because it didn't have some of the growing  pains issues that earlier editions had, even if those same growing pain issues where primary points of complaint at MOST tables (by no means all, and nostalgia does tend to re-write memory to make the olde days the Good Olde days by default) 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
sorry its called swagger.

for those that do not under stand my rhytem.

 but allow me to put it this way, do you deserve to be rich and powerful if you spent your money wisely?

how about the opposite?

why are we rewarding everyone the same way with 4e.

not encourageing overcomeing obstacles of stats, just saying i wanna game with defining choices.

that said, i like 3.5 its great, 4e.....mainly dosent give you flexibility, of its basic promise

 so i end up eleminating classes and races and just give the dude a weapon selection and a good story no names just roleplaying

Troll king

sorry its called swagger.

for those that do not under stand my rhytem.

 but allow me to put it this way, do you deserve to be rich and powerful if you spent your money wisely?

how about the opposite?

why are we rewarding everyone the same way with 4e.

not encourageing overcomeing obstacles of stats, just saying i wanna game with defining choices.

that said, i like 3.5 its great, 4e.....mainly dosent give you flexibility, of its basic promise

 so i end up eleminating classes and races and just give the dude a weapon selection and a good story no names just roleplaying


Wait, you eliminate two of the most defining elements of D&D in all editions — including 3.x — and then you're complaining about how classes worked in 4E?

Honestly I think D&D isn't even the TRPG for you because the very definition of classes involves inflexibility unless the base system that supports those "classes" is close to, if not actually, classless (and classes are simply frameworks that help you pre-choose your character's choices, much like how 5E's backgrounds, specialties and other feature packages work).  It sounds like you'd be more at home with GURPs, FATE, and other classless systems.

We reward everyone the same way with 4E because what we're looking at is character progression.  So it doesn't matter if you're progressing single-classed, hybrid, via feat-based multiclassing or a non-feat-based multiclassing, the point is the same: your character is progressing from level 1 to level 30 (or wherever your game is supposed to end).

Here's the problem with your analogy: spending money wisely will not always make you rich and powerful, much less deserving of being rich and powerful.  Besides, even within 4E there are still a few basic expectations that still put the fairly-optimized above that of those who refuse to optimize — the gap is just narrowed down so you don't have one PC doing 3000+ damage while the other can't do more than 50 on a crit, while being the same level with equal access to similar gear — and don't levels and EXP already exist as a means to reward players for their efforts? Why do we need to add System Mastery to the list of things players need to invest in just to play a game?

As for the mention of the term "swagger", if you want people to understand you, try a more tone-neutral way of writing.
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
First I'm assuming English is not your primary language, as your posts can be hard to interpret, but I'll try to be understanding there.

I've played D&D in every edition ever to come out, plus many of the clones and competitor games. I started at age 7, and I'm 42 now, so 35 years in this hobby (it is truly my life)

Gary Gygax was known to say that a Player's Class and Race are their MOST DEFINING choices. Yes, he encouraged roleplay, and built his game around the premise that role-playing was the primary focus...this is partly why there is a focus on Abstractions like Hit Points instead of more exact rules in that regard....doesn't get in the way of the story being told, you define Hit Points the way you want in each given situation. This is also why D&D, in the Gygax years, was rules lite outside of Combat, focusing 99% of the overall mechanics to the Combat side of things, Allowing people to be more free to interpet the Interaction and Exploration pillars of play. 4e just took that same philosophy and expanded upon it. YES, there is more survivability in 4e, BECAUSE the #1 complaint heard at a D&D table was that 1st level characters, especially Casters, were disposable...not even worth naming until somewhere between 3rd and 5th level.

D&D has never been about simulationism, it is about fantasy. Some people's playstyles encourage as much simulationism as possible, but that was never the intention of D&D...D&D was a modified Wargame (see Chainmail) turned into the pioneer of Role-playing games, and its rules, throughout the editions, were built around facilitating role-playing while providing consistent mechanics so that the most mechanical aspect of the game (Combat) can be as smooth as possible. Over the years, that "consistency" has ebbed and flowed and really, 4e was the culmination of that goal. 

The point of D&D is to allow a group of players to get together and recreate those fantasy stories that we all know and love, from Lord of the Rings, to the Belgariad, to the Rift War Saga (based on R.E.Feist's own Campaign of Midkemia) and thus the rules were developed so that the protagonists...the PCs could do heroic things. A major problem with actuating this goal was the squishiness of low level PCs...and there have been various fixes throughout the years for it. Most notably, people stopped playing at 1st level.

4e is very much D&D, in fact, when I first sat down to run a game of 4e as a DM, I felt like I was back running OD&D for my friends again. ONLY, the DM's job was made much much easier, and the PCs could put a lot more effort into their 1st level characters instead of waiting until they had survived a few levels before investing in bringing them to life.

Another thing 4e did that no other edition of D&D ever did before, was create basic Class Balance across the levels, instead of Low to High Level Pendulum shifting. (Fighters ruled at lower levels, Casters ruled at higher levels, and the sweetspot was the only time they were near equal) because frankly, between high probability of Caster Death at low levels, and Life happening, many games never even made it to higher levels, unless they group started at those higher levels, so it wasn't exactly fair to balance in that manner.

Can the Simple Fighter sit along side the Complex fighter at the same table...I think they can, as the same class...the Simple fighter just has some of the more complex options default chosen for him, or simplified. In example, a Standard type Fighter picks Background, Specialty, Build options, has skills, feats, etc... while a BASIC type fighter uses either Str or Dex as their primary skill determiner, and gets the skill bonus on all checks with that Ability score, instead of build, they get the default option for using their Expertise Dice (which changes from packet to packet right now, but mainly accuracy and damage focused), they get a very light version of specializing (basically pick their weapon type of choice, Sword & Board, 2 Handed, or Ranged) instead of all the options they have in the Standard game. Their choices are baked in, and pre-defined for them, but with the added benefit that if the BASIC fighter does want to customize a little bit, they can always tweak their character to a mid-level of complexity...(Like, instead of choosing the default weapon choices, the BASIC fighter might opt for actually using the Specialties module from Standard, or wanting to build a more Warlord type fighter, might opt for the Aid type Expertise functions over Damage and Accuracy choices)

I'm a little long winded, I apologize for that, but it does get under the skin when people try to claim that 4e wasn't D&D/D&D-like at all, just because it didn't have some of the growing  pains issues that earlier editions had, even if those same growing pain issues where primary points of complaint at MOST tables (by no means all, and nostalgia does tend to re-write memory to make the olde days the Good Olde days by default) 

You know, it's strange really... I've never actually played any TRPG or CRPG that's earlier than 2E, but when I look up the OD&D rules I am very much reminded of 4E, and even when I joined that 2E/3.x hybrid game I found it hard to say that the game was really that different from 4E;  I suppose it helps that the 2E/3.x game I joined was played in the very same high fantasy anime-esque wuxia style that people accuse 4E of being.

As far as I can recall, 3.x was actually accused of being the least D&D-like for a time, and honestly when you look at how 3.x runs in comparison to 0E, 1E, 2E and 4E, even though the format of everything pre-4E is the same, 3.x in particular seems to run with simulationism in mind (although 2E doesn't seem to be that far behind, given how THAC0 made the game almost as bounded accuracy-wise as 5E is).

What I find saddening is that apparently the influence of 3.x's table-specific gameplay is so prevalent that it's easily thought of as how pre-4E was actually played... but when you look at every book of D&D including 3.x, it doesn't describe having rules that simulate real life, but rules that allow fantasy adventure, emphasis on adventure.


  • The wizard wasn't really wimpy because he was hitting the books too much, he simply had d4 HP because he was a wizard class character. It just so happens that he is classically portrayed as the bookworm.

  • The fighter wasn't really stupid jock strong because he was hitting the gym too much, he simply had d10 HP and proficiency with most armor and weapon because he was a fighter class character.  Nothing in his class description in any edition predefined the story that explained why he had the fewest skills available to him, he was simply that way because he was the fighter.


Now from what I recall, the rebuttal of one particular poster regarding this was that he knew that the low levels were supposed to be apprentice levels precisely because low levels were quite lethal, but honestly that seems to be more of a mechanical error on the part of the developers, given how as far back as Dave Arneson's time as DM [0E?] he'd grant PCs much higher HP than normally allowed (as far as I can recall from second-hand info he was supposed to be giving like 4th level HD at level 1), and even in 2E's Dark Sun PCs are supposed to be granted higher starting HP than "normal" due to the lethal nature of that campaign setting.

Regarding simple/complex fighter being on the same table, it is definitely possible, and already happens in 4E when you have the Knight, Slayer and Weaponmaster (PHB Fighter) in the same adventure. 
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
my time spent with life has given me perspective on how d and d works. so theres no way calling some one, 1 trick by sticking them in a steriotype is logical. i dont see a real defining way to intro a class in my campaigns. because fighters like magic, and gandolf uses a long sword. its common knowledge, how does the story benifit from a player bieng useless in one area, and not acknowledge any thing for jack of all trades? or for that matter the other complexity of growing up having to adapt in gerneral? peoople in all circles lern as they grow, only a small few actualy specialize like how we see in class. plus its a fantasy game. my job in real lif sucks, if i had one, i would rather be free to fertilize my character traits than play to a statistic. see skyrim
 

Troll king

why not just have feats and skills where you build many times of archetypes.
idk.....that would help variate play styles, could also roll 1d20 for each ability(discarding any thing lower than 3), then pick a charcter archtype, ie strong, smart, etc +2 on favored ability score and +1 for racial ability. then let them select a favored weapon. based off str, ie hes got 6 str, war hammer is too heavy, bu can use it sluggishly. same with diffent schools of magic and the related ability, i trained with a ranger who tought me to talk to animals, only because i was curious.

then a lerning point system for balance or spell per level for any one who didnt want to use there wis, or int on magic, it could increase stealth, or accuracy, or stregnth, a skill or maby even a nother ability score bonous, knowledg is power, oh and pbh, dosent need powers, that could be in dmg, so if the player trains with an npc expert, they could unlock a power, or trade secrete.

Troll king

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Furthermore DnD, especially 4e was the happy medium. THe rules were coherent and balanced so I could get on with the RP aspects of the game instead of spending my time trying to nerf wish farmers.



D&D prior to 4e was a happy medium.
4e was to me unplayable as a role-playing game due to the number of disassciated mechanics, lack of simulationism, and inflexibility in character design.
I play RPGs to pretend to be my character, at all times, incluing in combat. 4es mechanics made no sense from an in-character point of view so prevented me from thinking in character.
The only class that came close to being playable was the Slayer in Essentials.
I am sure it makes a perfectly good tactical wargame, but it does not work for me as a RPG.

I first played in 1978 (OD&D) I did not know the rules, and did not need to. I was playing a warrior carrying a sword and shield. I imagine what my character would do and the DM told me if I succeeded. The basic fighter class should be able to be played that way.

Not that there is anything wrong with knowing the rules - at one time I could DM 1e from memory.  But the but at its heart D&D is Let's Pretend with a referee, No rules knowledge should be needed to play a character corresponding to the basic stereotype of a fantasy hero.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Furthermore DnD, especially 4e was the happy medium. THe rules were coherent and balanced so I could get on with the RP aspects of the game instead of spending my time trying to nerf wish farmers.



D&D prior to 4e was a happy medium.
4e was to me unplayable as a role-playing game due to the number of disassciated mechanics, lack of simulationism, and inflexibility in character design.
I play RPGs to pretend to be my character, at all times, incluing in combat. 4es mechanics made no sense from an in-character point of view so prevented me from thinking in character.
The only class that came close to being playable was the Slayer in Essentials.
I am sure it makes a perfectly good tactical wargame, but it does not work for me as a RPG.

I first played in 1978 (OD&D) I did not know the rules, and did not need to. I was playing a warrior carrying a sword and shield. I imagine what my character would do and the DM told me if I succeeded. The basic fighter class should be able to be played that way.

Not that there is anything wrong with knowing the rules - at one time I could DM 1e from memory.  But the but at its heart D&D is Let's Pretend with a referee, No rules knowledge should be needed to play a character corresponding to the basic stereotype of a fantasy hero.


Aaaand I think 4E already got that covered, since 1) you could play 4E with zero rules knowledge (beyond perhaps what the basic six ability scores do), and 2) for those who need rules, there's the powers you could fall back on.  Same applies to 3E, 2E, and 1E; it'll just be up to the DM if he'd allow improvisation to be superior to powers or not (or if it depends on particular scenarios), but as far as I can tell powers just serve to make the DM's life easier because they make it easier for him to make decisions without having to rely on the rulebook or rulings (since the mechanics text of each power is plain to see).

Wasn't 0D&D virtually rules-absent when it came to mechanics outside of spells, ability scores, thief skills and the six abilities?  Wasn't it based entirely on a tactical wargame (Chainmail)?
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
In what way was 3e a happy medium?
In what way was 3e a happy medium?



I was happy when I played 3rd. I just got burnt out DMing it.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

were you playing mages and/or with people who weren't using mages to their full potential?

BEcause otherwise I find 3e get's kinda boring fast, the mages do everything better than anyone else. 
I dm 90% of the time. If I get too play, I ussually played dwarf fighter /clerics or bards. So a little spell casting but honestly most of my players never understood how powerful spellcasters got because I would usually end my campaigns around 8-11 level.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

The one time I played a pally in 3rd. I got eatten by a troll. Good times.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I dm 90% of the time. If I get too play, I ussually played dwarf fighter /clerics or bards. So a little spell casting but honestly most of my players never understood how powerful spellcasters got because I would usually end my campaigns around 8-11 level.


So... in short you were basically playing/running it at the relatively small range where the game's mechanics actually works?


Oh and with regards to my previous post, just note that "powers" prior to 4E fell under 3 categories: spells, class features, and feats (especially when it came to the Fighter in particular, who not only had more feat slots, but also Fighter-exclusive feat slots). 
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
I dm 90% of the time. If I get too play, I ussually played dwarf fighter /clerics or bards. So a little spell casting but honestly most of my players never understood how powerful spellcasters got because I would usually end my campaigns around 8-11 level.


So... in short you were basically playing/running it at the relatively small range where the game's mechanics actually works?


Oh and with regards to my previous post, just note that "powers" prior to 4E fell under 3 categories: spells, class features, and feats (especially when it came to the Fighter in particular, who not only had more feat slots, but also Fighter-exclusive feat slots). 



Too be fair those are the funnest levels in every edition.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I dm 90% of the time. If I get too play, I ussually played dwarf fighter /clerics or bards. So a little spell casting but honestly most of my players never understood how powerful spellcasters got because I would usually end my campaigns around 8-11 level.


So... in short you were basically playing/running it at the relatively small range where the game's mechanics actually works?


Oh and with regards to my previous post, just note that "powers" prior to 4E fell under 3 categories: spells, class features, and feats (especially when it came to the Fighter in particular, who not only had more feat slots, but also Fighter-exclusive feat slots). 



Too be fair those are the funnest levels in every edition.

True enough; even though 4E might've stretched the "fun" range by a bit (I'd say 5 ~ 14, instead of 6 ~ 11), the "funnest" parts of the game still falls around 8 ~ 11.  Sure it doesn't satisfy the simulationist crowd — and I still think D&D was never really meant for simulationism anyway, given its roots as a wargame variant — but at least it's still "fun".

I'd like to think it's "fun" because it's at that range that the game is challenging but not too deadly, that there's a hefty amount of customization already in place but not too much customization that it becomes less character fleshing out and more mechanical tweaking and accounting, and the warriors are still strong enough to stand alongside the now-emerging spellcaster powerhouses (who aren't yet so powerful as to render any non-caster useless).  In short, it's the most balanced playing range for any and all editions.

Save for 5E apparently, but that's just an observation.

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
I actually always thought 4e ran best at levels 1-3. Two at-wills, a daily, and an encounter or two was the perfect amount of stuff to use. I really didn't like it when everyone had a list of powers a mile long.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
Sign In to post comments