Fighters should get powers

My proposal:

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level. Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
Like a wizard, he can learn maneuvers by training with other fighters and a few by himself.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
He can use those slots to use any maneuver he knows.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.
Sounds good to me.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.

Really, if we just got the Wizard off its daily-based amnesia train and over to a better running encounter system, then the developers could probably do a better job of balancing things over all.

But yeah, I'm cool with this idea.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

My proposal:

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level. Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
Like a wizard, he can learn maneuvers by training with other fighters and a few by himself.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
He can use those slots to use any maneuver he knows.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.



Sounds similar to ToB. I'm all for ToB style classes in 5e, but not for the basic fighter. The fighter has too much "baggage" to the point where even if they did receive maneuvers, their maneuvers would be little more than +X to hit or +Y to damage. Anything incredible would be off limits.

Also for a similar idea look <here>

(Yes I know it is a shameless plug. Shhhh!)

Fighters can already do just about everything that doesn’t involve magic. From body slamming, to choking someone to death or hamstringing someone with a bolt to the knee; they can do it. Wizards and Clerics can do it too just against lesser competition, with less effect or success rate. Isolating all that stuff into static powers arbitrarily doled out by level and class in a way that mimics spells is more of a restriction. For this to work we have to first define what is an improvisation and what is something that a character can perfect well enough to place on a character sheet. The current feats already to a decent job of that.

Really, if we just got the Wizard off its daily-based amnesia train and over to a better running encounter system



You wanna mess wit da 5-minute-workday?  We'ze gonna haf ta hav a liddle 'chat' wit ya.

--Wizards Union, Local 666 
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Maybe you don´t need 9 levels of "fighter spells", but I´d rather have maneuvers than feats for spcial things.

I don´t want simple two weapon fighting or a simple cleave work as a power. I would rather have 4e like stances and auras (knight, slayer, PHB1 fighter) spelled out as such maneuvers. It is not fighting styles, or simple maneuvers. It is a realy powerful ability exclusively used by fighters.

As much as I rant about immersion and such for 4e. The fighter (minus come and get it) is the prime example of why I like 4e. The fighter (and some other classes to a lesser extend) was fun to play. The first time I could play someone that is not only someone stupidly hammer on his foes, but someone who is able to react to the situation, protect his allies and such...

what I didn´t like was that you were limited to certain stances and had to unlearn old ones... I did however really like the knigh or slayer, as the main offenders were taken out:

- marking at distance, no matter how fun it was
- encounter powers that had to fill in for intersting maneuvers
- stances you could only take once per day

The only thing that would make the essentials fighter even better would have been a merge between slayer and knight. I can see both branching out from the core 5e fighter at level 3. At-will stances, that can be activated or enhanced several times per battle would be my favourite system of all.
Really, if we just got the Wizard off its daily-based amnesia train and over to a better running encounter system



You wanna mess wit da 5-minute-workday?  We'ze gonna haf ta hav a liddle 'chat' wit ya.

--Wizards Union, Local 666 

I wanna mess wit it soooooo hard.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

Vancian should be the base for the classic wizard (or magic-user actually)...

I would not mind a different casting mechanic as alternative.. but IIRC it is already clear, that different casting systems will be available from the get go. Which allowed the designers to give clerics and wizards the same flexible system and does not force them to create 10 different wizard like classes to satisfy everyone.

I know, here are pwople, who don´t believe MM anything. But I do believe him, when he says in a L&L ssomething I read as:

"It is a mistake to make 20 classes with different casting system. It should be something that can be switched out on a general campaign basis/for every class individually. System is modular. Alternates to vancian will be covered."
My proposal:

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level. Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
Like a wizard, he can learn maneuvers by training with other fighters and a few by himself.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
He can use those slots to use any maneuver he knows.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.



Well as far as i can tell that is what the new feats will be kind of.
In a tweet mike mearls said feats will be big active things.

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level.
feats will not be organized like the spell levels are but feats do have a minimul level you need to take the feat

Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
feats can be re strained to take a hinger level feat that produces a simular effect.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
Feats can have requirements like what weapon you must use to make use of the feat

A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
The feat discription tells you how often you can use a feat but I indeed asume many will be encounter based.




My proposal:

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level. Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
Like a wizard, he can learn maneuvers by training with other fighters and a few by himself.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
He can use those slots to use any maneuver he knows.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.



Well as far as i can tell that is what the new feats will be kind of.
In a tweet mike mearls said feats will be big active things.

Problem: what I am speaking of will be fighter only. His special.

I expect feats to be fighting style specific maneuvers. Those "stances" should be mostly indifferent of fightingstyles or enhance them in a dramatica way... even more than those super feats!

Don´t take me wrong. I do believe mearls is on the right track with feats. This will be extra and this should be something which will appease 4e fans.
Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level.
feats will not be organized like the spell levels are but feats do have a minimul level you need to take the feat

Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
feats can be re strained to take a hinger level feat that produces a simular effect.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
Feats can have requirements like what weapon you must use to make use of the feat

A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
The feat discription tells you how often you can use a feat but I indeed asume many will be encounter based.







Maybe you don´t need 9 levels of "fighter spells", but I´d rather have maneuvers than feats for spcial things.

I don´t want simple two weapon fighting or a simple cleave work as a power. I would rather have 4e like stances and auras (knight, slayer, PHB1 fighter) spelled out as such maneuvers. It is not fighting styles, or simple maneuvers. It is a realy powerful ability exclusively used by fighters.

As much as I rant about immersion and such for 4e. The fighter (minus come and get it) is the prime example of why I like 4e. The fighter (and some other classes to a lesser extend) was fun to play. The first time I could play someone that is not only someone stupidly hammer on his foes, but someone who is able to react to the situation, protect his allies and such...

what I didn´t like was that you were limited to certain stances and had to unlearn old ones... I did however really like the knigh or slayer, as the main offenders were taken out:

- marking at distance, no matter how fun it was
- encounter powers that had to fill in for intersting maneuvers
- stances you could only take once per day

The only thing that would make the essentials fighter even better would have been a merge between slayer and knight. I can see both branching out from the core 5e fighter at level 3. At-will stances, that can be activated or enhanced several times per battle would be my favourite system of all.




Its not just Come and Get it. The Rogue, Ranger, and the Warlord had a bunch of immersion killing exploits. There was no reason for many of the abilities to be exclusive to their class. Rolling everything into mostly general feats is a nice first step. Instead of classifying these abilities as special class powers I would suggest allowing classes to use the abilities in different ways. That way everyone can do just about everything that their character’s abilities ought to allow. It doesn’t break immersion, offers more tactical choice, and still allows for classes to add their own signature.





Im working on a system where fighters get a feat a level and can improve martial feats to it’s maximum effect. Rogues get a feat and a half a level but can only improve martial feats to medium effect. Wizards get ¾ of a feat a level and can only improve martial feats to medium effects. Monks get a feat a level. They can improve some martial feats to maximum effect and all martial arts feats to maximum effect. When they max a martial arts style they get a ki power or powers based on the martial arts style.  


Encounter powers are a huge design pandoras box that ruins a lot more about D&D than they solve.



And yet their introduction in the Tome of Battle made 3.5 SO MUCH BETTER.  Death to daily resources.

Powers will not be there for fighters. It's not just calling them maneuvers or whatever, maneuvers are at-will, you're talking about encouter powers. "Encounter" places an undue restriction on timing, room pacing, battle set up, and the like that was never there in any other D&D-like game, ever. If you want a 5-minute rest time, say that. Don't give me a variable duration spell, or martial stance, or whatever. My spells or your stance shouldn't expire the second the last orc dies, even if that's 30 seconds after it began. It should last an exact time, so that you can say, hey I'll do this and it should last me the next few important rooms.



from L&L article 

Powers, special attacks, minor spellcasting, expertise at sneaking or interaction,  and so forth can live inside of feats.
I also never understood why a fighter couldn't learn Off Hand Strike, unless he spent two feats, AND traded in something else he could do.


Because the designers of 4e never thought of, or at least didn't implement, common power pools until they introduced Skill Powers and racial utilities. Also, at the time of release, the designers were very careful about classes bleeding out of their primary role into other roles, which is a philosophy that they eased up on by the time PHB2 came out a year later.

(which for martial characters, is completely ludicrous from a realism standpoint).

Is it? Can a trained martial artist in the real world eventually learn every martial art move ever made (and still in current use) and be equally proficient in all of them at the same time? Wouldn't limits on remembering subtle differences and time limits regarding the number of hours per day needed to train muscle memory put an upper limit on things?

once you let go of "powers", your imagination is freed up to do anything you want. There is simply no mechanical way to balance throwing sand in someone's eyes vs stabbing them in the gut. I.e. don't even bother.

I never felt my imagination constrained by having detailed martial powers in 4e and I disagree about mechanically balancing throwing sand and stabbing attacks, they can be balanced against each other all it takes is effort on the part of the designers.

Splitting "encounters" into rooms ruins immersion and wrecks the game entirely.


I think that is why 4e encouraged DMs to build "encounters" that encompass several rooms and hallways at the same time. Not only did this expand the available battlefield to give forced movement powers room to work better, it also gave encounter duration powers a longer timeframe to operate.
A fighter doesn't need a spellbook. Maneuvers are cool, but you should be able to pick something up just by witnessing it done, or even hearing about it, or reading about it. You have an unlimited memory...


Learning how to do so at the vague/improvised level is simple enough from just seeing something, hearing about it or reading about it. And could perhaps allow for nearly unlimited memory in that regard. 
Being skilled enough to do something at the "martial character" level of reliability is something that takes a lot of practice, perhaps some careful teaching or at least the school of hard knocks, and it's harder to keep mastering more and more different things to that level while keeping all the other ones straight.

Or why I couldn't just use the same encounter power three times in a row. It's silly. If you're fighting a mindless ooze, does it remember what you did last round? If not, why should it matter whether you exert yourself to "Offhand strike" three times rather than once, then some other power, then some other power.


The Power Point system they came up with in PHB3 for psionic characters is actually a really good fit for martial PCs. If they'd thought of it sooner they could have put it in PHB1 and had martial characters that really play quite distinctly from the arcane/divine ones, while still being able to be compatable for MC/hybrid.
And while it would have the same issue of PP based PCs tending to spam the same augment over and over again, it wouldn't really feel too horribly out of place. After all, in previous editions martial characters just spammed the same moves over and over again. This would actually still be progress from that. 
 
Encounter powers are a huge design pandoras box that ruins a lot more about D&D than they solve.


Some would say the same about daily powers, especially vancian casting. ;)
I also never understood why a fighter couldn't learn Off Hand Strike, unless he spent two feats, AND traded in something else he could do.

A fighter doesn't need a spellbook. Maneuvers are cool, but you should be able to pick something up just by witnessing it done, or even hearing about it, or reading about it. You have an unlimited memory, there is no need to restrict a fighter to a list of maneuvers to improvise things, that's just going back to 4e but with less limits on the number of which you can know at one time (which for martial characters, is completely ludicrous from a realism standpoint).

I get how people want fighters to do cool things, but once you let go of "powers", your imagination is freed up to do anything you want. There is simply no mechanical way to balance throwing sand in someone's eyes vs stabbing them in the gut. I.e. don't even bother.

It always bugged me that a rogue could learn to knockout a foe once per day, but a fighter or ranger couldn't. Or why I couldn't just use the same encounter power three times in a row. It's silly. If you're fighting a mindless ooze, does it remember what you did last round? If not, why should it matter whether you exert yourself to "Offhand strike" three times rather than once, then some other power, then some other power.

Powers will not be there for fighters. It's not just calling them maneuvers or whatever, maneuvers are at-will, you're talking about encouter powers. "Encounter" places an undue restriction on timing, room pacing, battle set up, and the like that was never there in any other D&D-like game, ever. If you want a 5-minute rest time, say that. Don't give me a variable duration spell, or martial stance, or whatever. My spells or your stance shouldn't expire the second the last orc dies, even if that's 30 seconds after it began. It should last an exact time, so that you can say, hey I'll do this and it should last me the next few important rooms.

Splitting "encounters" into rooms ruins immersion and wrecks the game entirely. That's why they removed encounter powers, they were a huge fail and almost everyone I know who prefers other editions hated them and hated 4e because of them. (well, one of many reasons). 

Encounter powers are a huge design pandoras box that ruins a lot more about D&D than they solve.

1) You obviously don't know how encounter powers or "until the end of the encounter" powers work in 4E. They last until you take a short rest or for 5 minutes, whichever comes first. If "the last orc dies" your stance power doesn't end if you charge right into the next room without resting. It will end, however, if you spend 5 minutes to take a short rest.

2) Your claim that there were no encounter-based abilities prior to 4E is false. There were encounter resources in both Tome of Battle and Star Wars Saga Edition. In addition, it is my understanding the weapon mastery rules in Basic DnD featured many abilities you could only use once per battle.

3) I find it curious that exception-based powers are awful for fighters because they kill imagination but this criteria fails to apply to exception-based spells for clerics and wizards. And by "curious" I really mean "absurdly inconsistent and hypocritical". 

4) I find it interesting you have such an acute understanding of what 5E's design for fighters will be (especially since they already have encounter resources via expertise dice and Mearls has already said both ToB style maneuvers and 4E style powers will be contained in the feat system). If you are so adept at reading the future, perhaps hook a brother up with the winning Lotto numbers? ;)
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />A fighter doesn't need a spellbook. Maneuvers are cool, but you should be able to pick something up just by witnessing it done, or even hearing about it, or reading about it. You have an unlimited memory, there is no need to restrict a fighter to a list of maneuvers to improvise things, that's just going back to 4e but with less limits on the number of which you can know at one time (which for martial characters, is completely ludicrous from a realism standpoint).

I get how people want fighters to do cool things, but once you let go of "powers", your imagination is freed up to do anything you want. There is simply no mechanical way to balance throwing sand in someone's eyes vs stabbing them in the gut. I.e. don't even bother.



I don´t want them to be restricted to maneuvers like in you example. Throwing sand in the eyes or off hand strike have no place in such a list and that was a mistake in 4e.

Also I explicitely said, that there are no limits to the numbers of maneuvers known. I don´t mind if witnessing is enough or you need special training or even figuring out themselves.

Those "martial spells" need to be different from every example you give.
A good "power" was "rain of steel". It was a stance where everything in your vicinity took damage. This is nothing that has a place as an improvised maneuver, nor should it be available to everyone. But I really could imagine a fighter "power" in 5e working like:

Rain of steel:
"You transform the area next to you in a circle of death, dealing 1[w] damage to any creature ending their turn adjacent to you if you are aware of them. A dexterity saving throw halves (or negates) that damage."

or:

Defensive stance:
"your attacks and attacks against you have disadvantge"

or:

Offensive stance:
"your attacks and attacks against you have advantage"

or:
Guardian stance:
"If an ally next to you is attacked, you can take a reaction to attack the assailant"
If martial powers had broad applicability in the description of the power, beyond merely do X damage to Y creature, then I'd agree, but 4e's solution to wizards using their spells in creative ways (set the house on fire, break the glass instead of the enemies' head), blow off the wheel from the carriage with your "warp wood" spell, are all examples. I could easily, EASILY go through dozens of spells that aren't in 4e that a wizard could use creatively, and that I've personally used or seen use, towards such ends to accomplish things that aren't, and could not be, conceived of in the context of an "encounter".

If Tome of Battle was great for 3.5,  I'll take your word for it, but there has to be better ways to solve the linear/boring fighter than go back to 4e, which is a non-starter for a large chunk of the D&D community.

"1) You obviously don't know how encounter powers or "until the end of the encounter" powers work in 4E. They last until you take a short rest or for 5 minutes, whichever comes first. If "the last orc dies" your stance power doesn't end if you charge right into the next room without resting. It will end, however, if you spend 5 minutes to take a short rest."

I do understand exactly how long encounter powers last : there is no exact time. That's my point. It forces the DM to think of things like room x+y+z are encounter 1, Q+R are encounter 2, etc. That feels like railroading in play, and when players don't follow the trail of breadcrumbs all that planning is for naught. The creatures in the next room need to be able to barge in if they overhear, you are not supposed to "win" encounters. D&D should have risk, if the DM plans out a series of encounters balancing things to his party, that means his party has to follow that. What I'm saying is this is a bug, not a feature. After playing the game for three years, I got tired of that feeling of playing a scripted game, and wanted something more dynamic. "Encounter-based" design is the heart of what's limiting in this respect. 

I do have a serious problem with a spell that could last an hour (if you ping it while doing a "skill challenge" can it last an hour if the skill challenge doesn't end before then?), or 5 minutes the second the action stops. Why is it up to surround circumstances. Much, much, much better and elegant are earlier solutions to this problem.

E.g. in AD&D 2nd ed fly lasted way too long, several hours, they nerfed it eventually. I exploited it constantly, and would have actually liked to have it last somewhat less, but not 5 minutes. Jeez. I mean, it forces the game to be so combat-centric it's crazy. If I cast fly, I can't sit down for 5 minutes lest the magic go away? What if I need to recharge my encounter powers? I can't. You see, it puts these artificial roadblocks in between when you can do X, depending on what happened with Y. You lose ALL your "encounter-long" effects, many of which are triggered on daily intervals, if you need to heal or someone else needs to heal. I mean, how does that make sense?

Why should my fly spell poof when my ally takes a 5 minute break to surge up? And why can't I surge up too. They not only lost realism by forcing this etch-a-sketh-like refreshing of all powers at once, but in exchange they didn't gain anything back except a supposed balance between martial and casting classes, which in the end, didn't actually end up being true anyway. For the first year and a half of 4e a level 15 ranger could kill Orcus in one round, or a wizard stun lock him. Several years later, there are fixes for some of these things, but you could hardly call them balanced.

The 5-minute rule of encounter duration is most certainly not designed for exploration pillar of the game, which was flushed out and as a consequence, players lost interest in the game world, anything that wasn't happening in "battle time" was wasted time. You can have no powers active unless you're in an encounter. Or triggering one automatically says "now, you're in an encounter". It is just so many layers of absurd when you think about it.

And it has huge ramifications to world building, it makes everything feel very scripted and static, like an obstacle course or mini-golf range. Not very exciting to know that everything's planned out in advance and you have to follow the rails or you won't be able to "recharge". Much better to not even go there in the first place.

I seriously doubt Mearls will put anything remotely resembling "power" in the name for a feat granting a maneuver that recharges on a 5-minute-or-however-long timer for fighters. I hate being forced to chose between taking a break and having my daily run out. It puts the breaks on the fun for me.


No, encounter-long powers last for 5 minutes. Period.

I ran 4E for years and never ran into any of the issues you mention here --- and I was a brand new DM. I suspect this has more to do with your approach as a DM than any shortcoming of the system. My only real issue with 4E was the length of the combats, something I find 13th Age resolves quite nicely.
MtlKnight.  I suggest you read through the PHB1 and DMG1 once again. Most of your questions will be answered there and most of your arguments will be resolved. Knowing the rules of the game tends to make things work better.
Fighters can already do just about everything that doesn’t involve magic. From body slamming, to choking someone to death or hamstringing someone with a bolt to the knee; they can do it. Wizards and Clerics can do it too just against lesser competition, with less effect or success rate. Isolating all that stuff into static powers arbitrarily doled out by level and class in a way that mimics spells is more of a restriction. For this to work we have to first define what is an improvisation and what is something that a character can perfect well enough to place on a character sheet. The current feats already to a decent job of that.



My thoughts exactly.
The less we divide "what you can do in combat" between specific class abilities, the more diversity you gain in gameplay. You don't need to have the Disarm ability to try a disarm. But the Fighter could have an ability to get better at disarming.


The Fighter class could work well with a general "called shot" rule for combat. And by "called shot" I don't mean "I want to hit that guy in the eye so I can deal more damage."

But as a general rule for anything attempted in combat that is more complex than a regular attack roll. Examples could go from things we're already familiar with: Disarming, Bull Rushing, Tripping, etc... To improvised actions such as: pulling that guy's leg and dragging him about, distracting the enemy, sinking a finger into his nose, etc.

A general combat rule could state that attempting any such more complex "attack" incurs Disadvantage on the attack roll. And of course anyone can attempt them. That being the called shots, or whatever the name.

A Fighter then, could choose one such combat move (at every X levels) to become better at. By gaining the "improved disarm" ability (or whatever we call it), for example, he can now attempt Disarms with no Disadvantage.

He could also, at higher levels, be able to access an "advanced" set of abilities, making him actually gain Advantage by investing in Disarm even more.

And another interesting option would be, by means of these class-abilities, to allow the Fighter to perform more than a single one of those combat moves with one action. For example, he could attempt a Disarm that also damages the target if successful. Or a Push that also Trips the target if successful. Also something to be considered for mid or higher levels.
Maybe you don´t need 9 levels of "fighter spells", but I´d rather have maneuvers than feats for spcial things.

I don´t want simple two weapon fighting or a simple cleave work as a power. I would rather have 4e like stances and auras (knight, slayer, PHB1 fighter) spelled out as such maneuvers. It is not fighting styles, or simple maneuvers. It is a realy powerful ability exclusively used by fighters.

As much as I rant about immersion and such for 4e. The fighter (minus come and get it) is the prime example of why I like 4e. The fighter (and some other classes to a lesser extend) was fun to play. The first time I could play someone that is not only someone stupidly hammer on his foes, but someone who is able to react to the situation, protect his allies and such...

what I didn´t like was that you were limited to certain stances and had to unlearn old ones... I did however really like the knigh or slayer, as the main offenders were taken out:

- marking at distance, no matter how fun it was
- encounter powers that had to fill in for intersting maneuvers
- stances you could only take once per day

The only thing that would make the essentials fighter even better would have been a merge between slayer and knight. I can see both branching out from the core 5e fighter at level 3. At-will stances, that can be activated or enhanced several times per battle would be my favourite system of all.




Its not just Come and Get it. The Rogue, Ranger, and the Warlord had a bunch of immersion killing exploits. There was no reason for many of the abilities to be exclusive to their class. Rolling everything into mostly general feats is a nice first step. Instead of classifying these abilities as special class powers I would suggest allowing classes to use the abilities in different ways. That way everyone can do just about everything that their character’s abilities ought to allow. It doesn’t break immersion, offers more tactical choice, and still allows for classes to add their own signature.





Im working on a system where fighters get a feat a level and can improve martial feats to it’s maximum effect. Rogues get a feat and a half a level but can only improve martial feats to medium effect. Wizards get ¾ of a feat a level and can only improve martial feats to medium effects. Monks get a feat a level. They can improve some martial feats to maximum effect and all martial arts feats to maximum effect. When they max a martial arts style they get a ki power or powers based on the martial arts style.  



As long as you allow the same system to let martial characters to get at will spells to a medium effect through feats then at least you are consistent. But the benefit of maneuvers and spells is isolating the design space, so feats are reserved just for tweaking and can also be easily be removed from the game. Where spells and maneuvers can remain within the class to add variety. There is a benefit to not placing all your eggs in one basket.
Wooooooooooow, they don't need any actual abilities,  I can just use my imaginaaaaaaaaaatioooooooooon to do cool things as a Fighter!!! Whoooooooooa, with my imaginaaaaaaaaatiooooooooon I can try ANYTHING!!!* And everyone ELSE can try everything too! Because they can ALL imagine things, and do them exactly as well as me!!! Even if they have other, specific special abilities that only they can use and I can't replicate!!!

Woooooooooooooow, this totally frees me up to feel like a GREAT MARTIAL WARRIOR!!! Because martial techniques aren't a thing, right??? It doesn't take any, you know, strict, intense training to become a powerful warrior, ANY old idiot can swing a sword, amirite??? Thanks for OPENING MY BLIND EYES, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!



*PENDING DM APPROVAL
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Wizards are just as easy, poof you are charmed, dead, or are banish to a different plane. 5E design is complete, everyone can go home and start playing! Pending DM approval.
I would like to see the fighter work like the dragon age combat system or like a combo point system, where the fighter earns points through an encounter and spend these points to add rider abilites to his attacks. So for example, a straight warrior subclass might get 1 or 2 points per attack that hits that could be spent to knock down, push back, make an additional attack, or increase his ac. A more swashbuckler subclass might get a point when he is missed in combat or when he lands a strike with a light weapon, which could be used to buff ac, make an attack when missed in combat,or disarm an opponet.

I would really like the fighter to stay away from listed static manuvers. Having the fighter use a spell list would also be a step torwards a more uniform power system which I also oppose.
MtlKnight.  I suggest you read through the PHB1 and DMG1 once again. Most of your questions will be answered there and most of your arguments will be resolved. Knowing the rules of the game tends to make things work better.



Pfft.  Like he's going to use FACTS to argue.
Wooooooooooow, they don't need any actual abilities,  I can just use my imaginaaaaaaaaaatioooooooooon to do cool things as a Fighter!!! Whoooooooooa, with my imaginaaaaaaaaatiooooooooon I can try ANYTHING!!!* And everyone ELSE can try everything too! Because they can ALL imagine things, and do them exactly as well as me!!! Even if they have other, specific special abilities that only they can use and I can't replicate!!!

Woooooooooooooow, this totally frees me up to feel like a GREAT MARTIAL WARRIOR!!! Because martial techniques aren't a thing, right??? It doesn't take any, you know, strict, intense training to become a powerful warrior, ANY old idiot can swing a sword, amirite??? Thanks for OPENING MY BLIND EYES, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!



*PENDING DM APPROVAL



Really, is this kind of tripe needed? 

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

My proposal:

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level. Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
Like a wizard, he can learn maneuvers by training with other fighters and a few by himself.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
He can use those slots to use any maneuver he knows.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.



What problem is this solving?  It sounds to me like all it's doing is turning every class into a spell casting class with a different name for it.  In short,  homogenization.  Fighter and Mages should be mechanically different,  play very differently,  this sounds like it would be a case where the only difference is the words you wrote on the page.
My proposal:

Fighters get a similar list of maneuvers as the wizard, organized by level. Low level powers can be used at a higher level for greater effect.
Like a wizard, he can learn maneuvers by training with other fighters and a few by himself.

A fighter does not prepare maneuvers, but has all readily available, if he has the right weapon/armor etc. at hand.
A fighter gets slots to spend as the wizard. Fewer of course, as it is an encounter power for him.
He can use those slots to use any maneuver he knows.

Simple. Also a system quite comparable to the wizard´s spell system. Could be a model for an encounter based wizard too.



What problem is this solving?  It sounds to me like all it's doing is turning every class into a spell casting class with a different name for it.  In short,  homogenization.  Fighter and Mages should be mechanically different,  play very differently,  this sounds like it would be a case where the only difference is the words you wrote on the page.



You should go play 3e using ToB. The martial adepts play very differently than the caster classes.

I would say you should play 4e and again you will see that the caster classes play very differently from the martial classes, but you wouldn't believe me.
I don't want to be forced to play a wizard or the equivelent everytime I play a character.  I want to be able to pick a simple character without a ton of options to play.
I don't want to be forced to play a wizard or the equivelent everytime I play a character.  I want to be able to pick a simple character without a ton of options to play.

Me too, but I want to play a Wizard.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

I don't want to be forced to play a wizard or the equivelent everytime I play a character.  I want to be able to pick a simple character without a ton of options to play.

Me too, but I want to play a Wizard.




There should be simple and complex classes for each of the four major character types.  Martial, arcane, divine and rogue.
I'd actually agree with Max's idea if I thought the current crop of devs was capable of making classes of varying complexity levels balanced against each other.

As it is I think we're better off if the devs pick a complexity level and try to get each class hovering in that area. 
Personally if by powers they mean 4e fighter encounter/dailies I think I'll pass on them.  It won't bother me to do so though.  I wouldn't rule out using any feat they could offer but I'd prefer things closer to stances than powers.   e.g. power attack.

 
Wooooooooooow, they don't need any actual abilities,  I can just use my imaginaaaaaaaaaatioooooooooon to do cool things as a Fighter!!! Whoooooooooa, with my imaginaaaaaaaaatiooooooooon I can try ANYTHING!!!* And everyone ELSE can try everything too! Because they can ALL imagine things, and do them exactly as well as me!!! Even if they have other, specific special abilities that only they can use and I can't replicate!!!

Woooooooooooooow, this totally frees me up to feel like a GREAT MARTIAL WARRIOR!!! Because martial techniques aren't a thing, right??? It doesn't take any, you know, strict, intense training to become a powerful warrior, ANY old idiot can swing a sword, amirite??? Thanks for OPENING MY BLIND EYES, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!



*PENDING DM APPROVAL



Really, is this kind of tripe needed? 



Apparently yes, because without being smacked in the face with obviousness a lot of people can't understand why imagination isn't enough to make a class by itself.
Wooooooooooow, they don't need any actual abilities,  I can just use my imaginaaaaaaaaaatioooooooooon to do cool things as a Fighter!!! Whoooooooooa, with my imaginaaaaaaaaatiooooooooon I can try ANYTHING!!!* And everyone ELSE can try everything too! Because they can ALL imagine things, and do them exactly as well as me!!! Even if they have other, specific special abilities that only they can use and I can't replicate!!!

Woooooooooooooow, this totally frees me up to feel like a GREAT MARTIAL WARRIOR!!! Because martial techniques aren't a thing, right??? It doesn't take any, you know, strict, intense training to become a powerful warrior, ANY old idiot can swing a sword, amirite??? Thanks for OPENING MY BLIND EYES, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!



*PENDING DM APPROVAL



Really, is this kind of tripe needed? 



Relax. Just leave him be.
We were all 12 years old once too. Smile 
I think a better solution exists that doesn't simultaneously turn fighters into wizards. Martial feats, for instance, can have basic effects and bonus effects that only fighters can access.

If you have to fix it, it's broken.



Apparently yes, because without being smacked in the face with obviousness a lot of people can't understand why imagination isn't enough to make a class by itself.



The fact that you can't differentiate "not limit creative roleplaying overmuch by using too restrictive mechanics" from saying: "let's not have mechanics at all and leave all to imagination" makes it pretty clear to me that you're the one who can't understand what's being proposed and/or discussed.

A little tip: Actually reading what people are saying and discussing may go a long way to understand things.


Feats are powers.

Now the idea of having feat slots where the fighter prepares the feat to greater effect might be interesting.

But I think the idea will be rejected because the designers want to use a different system for each class.

They want to use Expertise Dice instead of slots for the fighter.

kira3696.tripod.com

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

If feats are powers then 1.) fighters need to get more of them in exchange for sucking.

2.) THey need to scale bettter and in general be more impressive than 3e feats. 
I'd actually agree with Max's idea if I thought the current crop of devs was capable of making classes of varying complexity levels balanced against each other. 



What can I say.  I'm an optimist
Sign In to post comments