Thoughts on the fighter for D&D Next

Much has been written on the fighter for the upcoming edition and much hang wringing and angst about whether the fighter is a viable choice as a class and how he should play during games. I feel though that the biggest problem with the fighter is a lack of identity. All other fighting subclasses such as the paladin, ranger and barbarian have clearly defined identities.  The Paladin is the (un)holy warrior, barbarian is fury and incredible animal like pain/damage threshhold, rangers are similar to a special forces unit being light, quick and deadly.  When I think of a fighter regardless of that fighter being a roman legionaire, a knight, samurai warrior or another classic warrior type a few things pop into my mind.


a) Armor training - Fighters tend to wear medium or preferrably heavy armor at all times. The only other figthing class that comes close in my mind is the paladin. Clerics prior to 4E also fit this mold as their were modeled after knightly orders.


b) Professional training - Fighters are rarely self taught. Whether it was training by family, government, military academy or instructor, fighters are experts trained to attack foes at an advantage and weild weapons with skill and deadly accuracy.


c) Grit and discipline - Fighters thrive in adversity. They march or ride for days and fight anytime at short notice. Cowardice is shamed and punished severely. Fighters should have bonuses against fear and intimidation. They may be afraid but they need to learn how to control fear  and be disciplined enough to not break rank and run. The best fighters in history and fiction persevere when all hope seems lost. D&D Next really needs to capture this aspect for fighters.


Things I would like to see fighters gain for D&D Next

1) Expertise powers that cover a broad range of defensive manuevers. Do not force me to take expertise abilities to cover both hand -to-hand & ranged attacks against me. A power should cover both. A second power should confer that expertise benefit to allies within a sensible range.

2) Extra feats - Feats=training and knowledge. A fighter should have more knowledge about martial feats than other fighting characters.


3) Increase minimum damage for fighter weapons - Fighters should be able to increase the minium damage by 1 point every few levels.  At 1,5,10,15,& 20 the damage die minimum roll defaults to 1+ the increase. For example say a fighter at 5th level attacks with a short sword. His minimum damage roll is 3 (roll of 1 plus minium of 2 at 5th level). This way the fighter is not over damaging monsters but his damage on average will always be higher than a non-fighter using a similar weapon. This would demonstrate skill and training better. It could be easily added to any character sheet by creatng a minimum roll box next to weapon damage and including all benefits for strength and magic weapons. The 5th level fighter in the above example could have a minium damage roll of 8 by including 3 for minium damage at 5th level +4 for strength and  +1 for a magic shortsword.


             
2) Extra feats - Feats=training and knowledge. A fighter should have more knowledge about martial feats than other fighting characters.

Extra feats is acceptable, but limiting those feats to a defined subset is unnecessary.

I agree with one and two.  On three, I lean more to increasing the probability of success.  A fighter should get a better chance of hitting.  When he hits, a fighter should get a better probability of hitting harder.  I think a blanket, spend an expertise die to increase your chances to hit (via advantage/disadvantage) and/or spend (another) expertise die to reroll a low damage die would go along way to making the fighter better.  One of my suggestions, in another thread, is to just give him a standard damage boost (1d6 or whatever) any time he spends a expertise die in addition to any other effect that the expenditure might impart. 

The current fighter is just...  meh, in my opinion. 
2) Extra feats - Feats=training and knowledge. A fighter should have more knowledge about martial feats than other fighting characters.

Extra feats is acceptable, but limiting those feats to a defined subset is unnecessary.




Why is limiting feats to the martial subset unnecessary? Fighters getting extra martial feats makes sense from the class perspective. They are martial trained warriors after all. By gaining martial feats it still frees them up to get no-martial feats at the regular feat level increases.
I agree with one and two.  On three, I lean more to increasing the probability of success.  A fighter should get a better chance of hitting.  When he hits, a fighter should get a better probability of hitting harder.  I think a blanket, spend an expertise die to increase your chances to hit (via advantage/disadvantage) and/or spend (another) expertise die to reroll a low damage die would go along way to making the fighter better.  One of my suggestions, in another thread, is to just give him a standard damage boost (1d6 or whatever) any time he spends a expertise die in addition to any other effect that the expenditure might impart. 

The current fighter is just...  meh, in my opinion. 



My increase gives the fighter a better chance of hitting harder because his minimums decrease. He becomes less chaotic and more professional. I would rather have 10 guys who hit average or better than 10 guys who have a wild damage range. Why should the fighter get a bonus damage die for a defensive expertise tactic? Fighter IMHO don't need more damage. They need abilities that increase their tactical appeal.
Why is limiting feats to the martial subset unnecessary?

Because there is absolutely no harm in allowing a "Fighter" to be an exceptional gardener or craftsman with his extra feats when he's not murdering things.  Additionally, it avoids a situation where the "bonus" feat has no particular desirable murder-feat to go into at any given time.
Why is limiting feats to the martial subset unnecessary?

Because there is absolutely no harm in allowing a "Fighter" to be an exceptional gardener or craftsman with his extra feats when he's not murdering things.  Additionally, it avoids a situation where the "bonus" feat has no particular desirable murder-feat to go into at any given time.


By it's a class feat, and the fighter class is solely about killing things. Now the fighter character is class+skill+feats+background, so with those things he expands himself farther than just being a fighter. The class is called the fighter so the class abilities should revolve around fighting.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Why is limiting feats to the martial subset unnecessary?

Because there is absolutely no harm in allowing a "Fighter" to be an exceptional gardener or craftsman with his extra feats when he's not murdering things.  Additionally, it avoids a situation where the "bonus" feat has no particular desirable murder-feat to go into at any given time.



I do not understand your contention. Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you. I would think that similar logic would hold sway if feats were given to rogues and wizards. Those feats would come from the rogue and magical subsets.  When you take a martial arts class you are trained in that specific martial art. You are not attending those classes to take cooking lessons.
Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you.

Then why in the hell are they feats instead of class abilities?

I agree with one and two.  On three, I lean more to increasing the probability of success.  A fighter should get a better chance of hitting.  When he hits, a fighter should get a better probability of hitting harder.  I think a blanket, spend an expertise die to increase your chances to hit (via advantage/disadvantage) and/or spend (another) expertise die to reroll a low damage die would go along way to making the fighter better.  One of my suggestions, in another thread, is to just give him a standard damage boost (1d6 or whatever) any time he spends a expertise die in addition to any other effect that the expenditure might impart. 

The current fighter is just...  meh, in my opinion. 



My increase gives the fighter a better chance of hitting harder because his minimums decrease. He becomes less chaotic and more professional. I would rather have 10 guys who hit average or better than 10 guys who have a wild damage range. Why should the fighter get a bonus damage die for a defensive expertise tactic? Fighter IMHO don't need more damage. They need abilities that increase their tactical appeal.



I would rather have 10 guys that hit more often or hit better than average depending on the need of circumstance.
Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you.

Then why in the hell are they feats instead of class abilities?




Simple, because feats allow different classes to have similarities.  Not every fight MUST have cleave but most fighters end up taking it. If a player in your group is not big on the fighter concept but woul enjoy playing a King Arthur or Luke Skywalker persona but would like a martial feat  for his paladin he can take it.  Feats are the extra window dressing and fighters gaining martial feats as bonus feats makes sense. They are bonuses and it makes sense that being a disciplined, martial trained warrior you have  more fighting experience than some savage with a great club. Martial feats help to emphasize that. Fighters are fighters, they are not jack-of-all trades like bards.
Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you.

Then why in the hell are they feats instead of class abilities?



It is a class ability. It's an ability that says "take a martial feat". It's written that way because the martial feats already exist so it makes sense for the fighter to just choose one of them instead of having to create a new giant list of abilities for only fighters to have.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
I agree with one and two.  On three, I lean more to increasing the probability of success.  A fighter should get a better chance of hitting.  When he hits, a fighter should get a better probability of hitting harder.  I think a blanket, spend an expertise die to increase your chances to hit (via advantage/disadvantage) and/or spend (another) expertise die to reroll a low damage die would go along way to making the fighter better.  One of my suggestions, in another thread, is to just give him a standard damage boost (1d6 or whatever) any time he spends a expertise die in addition to any other effect that the expenditure might impart. 

The current fighter is just...  meh, in my opinion. 



My increase gives the fighter a better chance of hitting harder because his minimums decrease. He becomes less chaotic and more professional. I would rather have 10 guys who hit average or better than 10 guys who have a wild damage range. Why should the fighter get a bonus damage die for a defensive expertise tactic? Fighter IMHO don't need more damage. They need abilities that increase their tactical appeal.



I would rather have 10 guys that hit more often or hit better than average depending on the need of circumstance.



Here is my rebuttal to that. In the 1rst Edition Monster Manual Ogres hit for 1D10 damage. My DM noticed that the highest human strength you could get equaled ogre strength. That equivalent was +3 to hit and +6 to damage. My DM ruled that the ogres used daggers and hit for 1D4+6 vs 1D10. The max. damage did not increase but the minimum increased dramatically to 7 points. We all grumbled how the ogre was much more dangerous without a maximum damage increase. Take the deadly strike benefit now. A barbarian with a longsword rolls 5D8+6 damage for an average of 26,  My fighter in the above example woudl roll 5D8+6 with a minimum of roll of six per die. This means my fighter averages 36 points of damage per attack. This is a 10 point difference which is substantial. This does not factor in effects of rage or fighter expertise. Just flat damage rolls assuming an average roll of 4.


You cannot increase the fighters to hit rolls without trashing the bounded accuracy system they are trying to enforce.  You can however make the fighters hits more meaningful by negating the chance of minimal damage rolls.
I agree with one and two.  On three, I lean more to increasing the probability of success.  A fighter should get a better chance of hitting.  When he hits, a fighter should get a better probability of hitting harder.  I think a blanket, spend an expertise die to increase your chances to hit (via advantage/disadvantage) and/or spend (another) expertise die to reroll a low damage die would go along way to making the fighter better.  One of my suggestions, in another thread, is to just give him a standard damage boost (1d6 or whatever) any time he spends a expertise die in addition to any other effect that the expenditure might impart. 

The current fighter is just...  meh, in my opinion. 



My increase gives the fighter a better chance of hitting harder because his minimums decrease. He becomes less chaotic and more professional. I would rather have 10 guys who hit average or better than 10 guys who have a wild damage range. Why should the fighter get a bonus damage die for a defensive expertise tactic? Fighter IMHO don't need more damage. They need abilities that increase their tactical appeal.



I would rather have 10 guys that hit more often or hit better than average depending on the need of circumstance.



Here is my rebuttal to that. In the 1rst Edition Monster Manual Ogres hit for 1D10 damage. My DM noticed that the highest human strength you could get equaled ogre strength. That equivalent was +3 to hit and +6 to damage. My DM ruled that the ogres used daggers and hit for 1D4+6 vs 1D10. The max. damage did not increase but the minimum increased dramatically to 7 points. We all grumbled how the ogre was much more dangerous without a maximum damage increase. Take the deadly strike benefit now. A barbarian with a longsword rolls 5D8+6 damage for an average of 26,  My fighter in the above example woudl roll 5D8+6 with a minimum of roll of six per die. This means my fighter averages 36 points of damage per attack. This is a 10 point difference which is substantial. This does not factor in effects of rage or fighter expertise. Just flat damage rolls assuming an average roll of 4.


You cannot increase the fighters to hit rolls without trashing the bounded accuracy system they are trying to enforce.  You can however make the fighters hits more meaningful by negating the chance of minimal damage rolls.



Here's the thing though.  There are differing playstyles.  Some players will be more interested in hitting more often than hitting harder.  Others will want to hit harder even if it means hitting less.  Some won't settle for anything less than hitting all the time really hard.  Personally, I can't say I have solution for that one.  But by giving both options, hitting more often and/or hitting hard, you can accomodate more people.  Statistically, advantage (along with rerolling your damage die) has a significant effect on your chances of doing more damage over the long haul.  The reason I advocate rerolling damage is that its easier to explain and remember that I can "spend an expertise die" to reroll (gain advantage) on an attack or reroll a damage die. 
Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you.

Then why in the hell are they feats instead of class abilities?




Simple, because feats allow different classes to have similarities.  Not every fight MUST have cleave but most fighters end up taking it. If a player in your group is not big on the fighter concept but woul enjoy playing a King Arthur or Luke Skywalker persona but would like a martial feat  for his paladin he can take it.  Feats are the extra window dressing and fighters gaining martial feats as bonus feats makes sense. They are bonuses and it makes sense that being a disciplined, martial trained warrior you have  more fighting experience than some savage with a great club. Martial feats help to emphasize that. Fighters are fighters, they are not jack-of-all trades like bards.



The thing is, though, fighters should have some things that only they can do- otherwise they get kinda lost in the inevitable flood of paladins, rangers, clerics, and other more colorful classes.
Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you.

Then why in the hell are they feats instead of class abilities?




Simple, because feats allow different classes to have similarities.  Not every fight MUST have cleave but most fighters end up taking it. If a player in your group is not big on the fighter concept but woul enjoy playing a King Arthur or Luke Skywalker persona but would like a martial feat  for his paladin he can take it.  Feats are the extra window dressing and fighters gaining martial feats as bonus feats makes sense. They are bonuses and it makes sense that being a disciplined, martial trained warrior you have  more fighting experience than some savage with a great club. Martial feats help to emphasize that. Fighters are fighters, they are not jack-of-all trades like bards.



The thing is, though, fighters should have some things that only they can do- otherwise they get kinda lost in the inevitable flood of paladins, rangers, clerics, and other more colorful classes.



That would be true if they only got feats.  Feats are, from my understanding, give general options to characters.  For martial classes, the ability to wield two weapons is something that multiple, well every one including non-martial ones, classes can get through feats.  Fighters just get to pick some of these feats as a class feature on top of the normal feat slots available to every character.  Other classes, for the most part, have to burn their normal feat to get those universal combat options.

The fighter still gets some other options open only to fighters. 
Being trained as a military person you would have martial training. You can do alternative things with your normal feats like cooking but the martial feats represent martial abilities taught to you.

Then why in the hell are they feats instead of class abilities?



Because not all Fighters will have all the same class abilities.  Some are swordsmen, others knights, others archers and others tribal warriors.  But instead of building a separate class for every single permutation of Weapon Mastery and Fighting Style we get to build it ourself, like Legos.  I love Legos.  Don't you?

Besides, we don't have a class for every type of 'magic school' do we?  We don't have Conjurers and Evokers and Enchanters with their own special class powers, so Fighters shouldn't be broken into such either.
Since Feats may or may not be in every game, shouldn't whatever fighters get to make them more distinctive and awesome be a class feature not a feat? I personally think they should have more expertise die and interesting ways to use them. 
Fighters do need powers like in 4e or in the ToB (Warblade) that belong only to them. In that way they can still be an interesting class to play. 

To WotC: if the fighter can be built using more feats, why don't we create magic feats that let you learn spells and just give the wizard/cleric more magic feats than others?

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

I hate the Fighter for two reasons:

1) The lack of a meaningful, scaled set of abilities that they can choose from, like Tome of Battle manuevers, psionic powers, spells, invocations, soulmelds, vestiges, etc. 

2) LOTS of Dead, Dead-ish, and Cop-Out levels where he gains nothing but a hit die, a +1 bonus to something, or an additional use of a daily ability that should have just been included as part of a larger scaled set of abilities.

There are tons of ways you could do this.  For example:

Fighter

Insert Cool Fluff, and normal hit dice, proficiencies, etc.

Weapon Attack Bonus: At first level you gain a +1 to your attack rolls when using a weapon that you are proficient with.  This bonus increases by an additional +1 at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16. . 

Combat Expertise: At first level you gain 1d6 martial damage die each round at the end of your turn.  You gain an addition 1d6 martial damage die each round at level 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18.  When you successfully hit a target with a melee or ranged attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can spend any or all of your martial damage dice to deal extra damage. Roll those dice, and add their total to the damage dealt by that attack.  Martial damage dice that are not expended by the end of your turn are lost, and do not accumulated from turn to turn. 

Bonus Feats: At 1st level, 2nd level, and every odd level thereafter you gain a bonus Feat of your choice.  You may change your selection of bonus Feats by spending 8 hours resting or meditating followed by 1 hour in continous rigourous exercise and training.  You must otherwise qualify for the Feat in order to select it, and may not change a bonus Feat if it is currently a pre-requisite for any other of your current Feats.

Warlord: At 20th level, you gain a really awesome capstone ability. 


Now create a seperate list of cool Feats, including all the normal simple passive stuff for people who don't want any codified actions, but also a line of Fighter only Feats that grant martial manuevers which run off of Martial Damage Dice.  This means that the Fighter can either use Martial Damage Dice as a strait damage bonus if that's all you want, and/or you can use it as a renewable pool of martial manuevers, with the pool of uses of all such manuevers growing on even levels and the number of options expanding on odd levels.  For example, a Fighter 1 could take the Parry Feat, which uses 1 Martial Damage Dice to parry an attack.  Fighter 12 could take the Action Surge Feat - on the first round of any combat during your turn you may spend 6 Martial Damage Dice to gain an extra Action.  Or whatever.  I'm sure you could create 10-20ish cool Fighter only Feats to please the 4E and/or Tome of Battle loving crowd, and 10-20ish simple Feats (which everyone would have access to, but the Fighter would clearly have more of) to please the old school crowd.

This is just an example and not meant as my be all end all of what the Fighter should look like.  I'm open to anything that has a set of scaled abilities that you can choose from, and no dead levels. 
I'm all for making the fighter into the 4e warlord, because to be honest that's the impression I've always had of fighters.
Allow me to elaborate.

Reading my father's records of his BECMI game, I noticed that by high levels of course most players had a number of followers, not to mention keeps and the like. Most importantly, I noticed the friggen' LEGION the fighter had, and upon further investigation, the fighters in later games had.

I have always seen the fighter as reaching kinglike status or general status, and his gimmick could be commanding.
Fighters can have options with this. Depending on playstyle and class feature choices...

I'm a fighter. I do my best to protect my allies and smash the baddies. I focus on expanding my repertoire of expertise dice maneuvers and becoming better at my selected style of combat.

I'm a captain. I lead from the front, trying to dish out some hurt while giving my team a tactical advantage. I know a number of maneuvers, but also have -(warlord mechanic)-'s enough to keep my team in the fight.

I'm a commander. I watch the flow of battle, and have a number of followers who are willing to fight in my place. I focus entirely on learning new -(warlord mechanic)-'s and managing my followers' needs.

TL;DR fighters=classicfighters+fighter/warlord+warlord? 
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Ok then the fighter needs to get level appropriate combat followers, the ability to boost the whole party, and grant extra actions.

I would be totally fine if fighter became warlord spelled wierd, they just need to not suck at it.
Since Feats may or may not be in every game, shouldn't whatever fighters get to make them more distinctive and awesome be a class feature not a feat? I personally think they should have more expertise die and interesting ways to use them. 



I think the fighter should get a more interesting way to expend expertise die (or as I put in one of my proposals, expertise points).  That is a definite.  In addition, I think they should get access to fighter only maneuvers akin to earlier playtest packets.  It's not hard to implement, and, in my opinion, easier to implement and understand than the current fighter iteration.  On top of that, I still think the fighter should get martial feats.  I don't think, at least with what we have, feats are truly optional.  They can still be selected in the game via class features.  What makes them optional is that you can take out the "everyone gets to choose feats on top of the class features" part of the game. 

If the fighter is core and a class feature says pick a feat from this list, then feats, to a small degree, are core.  It's just a way for the developers to save space in the PHB.  Otherwise, you would have text for the feat and identical, or almost identical, text for a class feature that should be given by giving out feats... 
Since Feats may or may not be in every game, shouldn't whatever fighters get to make them more distinctive and awesome be a class feature not a feat? I personally think they should have more expertise die and interesting ways to use them. 



I think the fighter should get a more interesting way to expend expertise die (or as I put in one of my proposals, expertise points).  That is a definite.  In addition, I think they should get access to fighter only maneuvers akin to earlier playtest packets.  It's not hard to implement, and, in my opinion, easier to implement and understand than the current fighter iteration.  On top of that, I still think the fighter should get martial feats.  I don't think, at least with what we have, feats are truly optional.  They can still be selected in the game via class features.  What makes them optional is that you can take out the "everyone gets to choose feats on top of the class features" part of the game. 

If the fighter is core and a class feature says pick a feat from this list, then feats, to a small degree, are core.  It's just a way for the developers to save space in the PHB.  Otherwise, you would have text for the feat and identical, or almost identical, text for a class feature that should be given by giving out feats... 



I see what you are saying, the class feats would be core and bonus feats would be replace by +1 ability bonuses in a game without feats. If you chose to use the feats options you could select a feat from the list instead of the +1 ability bump. I don't think I've seen you expertise points proposal, but it kind of sounds like expertise die are going to be replaced with some surge mechanic in the next iteration of the fighter.

I agree that the fighter shouldn't have any dead levels. That bothered me more than anything else playing 3e because I felt that my level up I worked a month or two on didn't mean anything while the wizard to my left just leared fireball.

I would give the fighter a bonus feat at every even level and a maneuver every level without some other bonus ability (multiattack). Manuevers would be fighter only abilites that utilized expertise dice to deal extra damage, have greater defense, inspire an allies attack or damage, or do some non damage related thing such as impose a status condition.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Ok then the fighter needs to get level appropriate combat followers, the ability to boost the whole party, and grant extra actions.

I would be totally fine if fighter became warlord spelled wierd, they just need to not suck at it.



The fighter with extra little minions following him around seems interesting. But what would a fighter that doesn't want to deal with them get instead? I find pets, summons, and familiars a pain to deal with, and I can only imagine that this would rank with them. Another point is that this seems like it might mesh well with the hinted at down time system.
 
Since Feats may or may not be in every game, shouldn't whatever fighters get to make them more distinctive and awesome be a class feature not a feat? I personally think they should have more expertise die and interesting ways to use them. 



I think the fighter should get a more interesting way to expend expertise die (or as I put in one of my proposals, expertise points).  That is a definite.  In addition, I think they should get access to fighter only maneuvers akin to earlier playtest packets.  It's not hard to implement, and, in my opinion, easier to implement and understand than the current fighter iteration.  On top of that, I still think the fighter should get martial feats.  I don't think, at least with what we have, feats are truly optional.  They can still be selected in the game via class features.  What makes them optional is that you can take out the "everyone gets to choose feats on top of the class features" part of the game. 

If the fighter is core and a class feature says pick a feat from this list, then feats, to a small degree, are core.  It's just a way for the developers to save space in the PHB.  Otherwise, you would have text for the feat and identical, or almost identical, text for a class feature that should be given by giving out feats... 



I see what you are saying, the class feats would be core and bonus feats would be replace by +1 ability bonuses in a game without feats. If you chose to use the feats options you could select a feat from the list instead of the +1 ability bump. I don't think I've seen you expertise points proposal, but it kind of sounds like expertise die are going to be replaced with some surge mechanic in the next iteration of the fighter.




Yeah.  I'll have to wait and see the next fighter.  Funny thing is...  I'm not huge fighter fan; however, I think that the fighter should set the tone and standard for the other martial classes.  That makes it the most important class for me at this stage.  

In my proposal, I just give you points instead of dice.  You can basically use a point to gain advantage or eliminate disadvantage on most 1d20 rolls in combat or reroll you damage die.  On top of that, using an expertise point grants you a damage boost.  I just picked 1d6 for that purposes; however, it probably should scale somewhat with level.  In addition, you could spend expertise points to perform special maneuvers like attacking someone that is attacking an ally as a reaction (and still get your damage boost), doing a whirlwind attack or other "cool" things. 

So, I would just tell a new player, "Spend an expertise point to reroll a combat roll, attack or damage, and get a damage boost on top of that.  Or, spend it to do that cool maneuver you picked".  To me that's pretty simple and straightforward. 

Of course, my proposal does have an added component; however, that was due to a personal need to illustrate a point on how to incorporate, or illustrate how certain things from 4e could be incorporated, certain features into DDN...     

Yeah.  I'll have to wait and see the next fighter.  Funny thing is...  I'm not huge fighter fan; however, I think that the fighter should set the tone and standard for the other martial classes.  That makes it the most important class for me at this stage.  

In my proposal, I just give you points instead of dice.  You can basically use a point to gain advantage or eliminate disadvantage on most 1d20 rolls in combat or reroll you damage die.  On top of that, using an expertise point grants you a damage boost.  I just picked 1d6 for that purposes; however, it probably should scale somewhat with level.  In addition, you could spend expertise points to perform special maneuvers like attacking someone that is attacking an ally as a reaction (and still get your damage boost), doing a whirlwind attack or other "cool" things. 

So, I would just tell a new player, "Spend an expertise point to reroll a combat roll, attack or damage, and get a damage boost on top of that.  Or, spend it to do that cool maneuver you picked".  To me that's pretty simple and straightforward. 

Of course, my proposal does have an added component; however, that was due to a personal need to illustrate a point on how to incorporate, or illustrate how certain things from 4e could be incorporated, certain features into DDN...     



I'm right with you about the Fighter. I prefer Wizards or Priests because even when fighters are rolling huge hits its really all the same thing. I appreciated 4th ed for trying to fix that, but it just didn't work for my group. That's why I think getting a Fighter that everyone can enjoy playing is the most critical thing Next can do. The expertise point thing sounds interesting, and from what I remember hearing about the new mechanic it does give the fighter an extra action. I think it was only once a day, but that seems a little to limited for me. Seems like there should be a few of them that recharge after a short rest.


Yeah.  I'll have to wait and see the next fighter.  Funny thing is...  I'm not huge fighter fan; however, I think that the fighter should set the tone and standard for the other martial classes.  That makes it the most important class for me at this stage.  

In my proposal, I just give you points instead of dice.  You can basically use a point to gain advantage or eliminate disadvantage on most 1d20 rolls in combat or reroll you damage die.  On top of that, using an expertise point grants you a damage boost.  I just picked 1d6 for that purposes; however, it probably should scale somewhat with level.  In addition, you could spend expertise points to perform special maneuvers like attacking someone that is attacking an ally as a reaction (and still get your damage boost), doing a whirlwind attack or other "cool" things. 

So, I would just tell a new player, "Spend an expertise point to reroll a combat roll, attack or damage, and get a damage boost on top of that.  Or, spend it to do that cool maneuver you picked".  To me that's pretty simple and straightforward. 

Of course, my proposal does have an added component; however, that was due to a personal need to illustrate a point on how to incorporate, or illustrate how certain things from 4e could be incorporated, certain features into DDN...     



I'm right with you about the Fighter. I prefer Wizards or Priests because even when fighters are rolling huge hits its really all the same thing. I appreciated 4th ed for trying to fix that, but it just didn't work for my group. That's why I think getting a Fighter that everyone can enjoy playing is the most critical thing Next can do. The expertise point thing sounds interesting, and from what I remember hearing about the new mechanic it does give the fighter an extra action. I think it was only once a day, but that seems a little to limited for me. Seems like there should be a few of them that recharge after a short rest.




Combat surge is already in the fighter.  It allows you to take another action on your turn...  It's a daily that you get extra uses as you level.  It's a good power; it just doesn't make up for the powers of some of the other classes. 
I see the surge now, it's an 11'th level ability. Does that mean they are moving it down in level?
I see the surge now, it's an 11'th level ability. Does that mean they are moving it down in level?



I don't know.  I'm waiting for the next fighter.  I do know that relying on daily powers can be alittle problematic on balancing DPR and interest in a class.  Campaigns will vary widely on how many encounters a day will be the average.  This means that daily resources will vary widely on overall effectiveness.  So, I still think that fighters will ultimately need some form of maneuvers to be effective in the long run with an encounter, at the very least, refresh mechanic. 

I'm in the same boat as everyone else though; except, I might be the only one holding my breath waiting for the next packet.  Well, at least if these forums are any indication, which I don't think they are... 
I hope th enext packet brings improvements, I just don't let that stop me from tearing apart everything that's wrong with the current one.
It needs an entire rewrite. I'm thoroughly unhappy with it. They are boring and underpowered, especially at the higher levels and it's a drag DMing a game with several in the party because I have to play with the kiddy gloves on.

Either you play ball and the casters beat the tar out of encounters with ease or you don't and multiple martials die before you can even start to blink.

The monster math needs to be fixed, the casters need to be more balanced with noncasters, and the noncasters need more interesting toys. This is especially true at higher levels. If it's not fixed then high level 5E is set up to be the worst high level D&D of any of the editions, and we all know how much of a mess high paragon/epic tier was for 4E, or 12 - 20 was for 3.5. Worse than either of the two combined. 

Stop the H4TE

I hope th enext packet brings improvements, I just don't let that stop me from tearing apart everything that's wrong with the current one.



Yeah.  The ability to destroy is far easier to attain than the ability to create.  I agree with that.
You can only be better when you know what went wrong in the past.
But instead of building a separate class for every single permutation of Weapon Mastery and Fighting Style we get to build it ourself, like Legos.  I love Legos.  Don't you?

Curses!  you have discovered my only weakness.  Let me get my credit card.
(Stupid Lego 50003, why are you not in America yet?)

Besides, we don't have a class for every type of 'magic school' do we?  We don't have Conjurers and Evokers and Enchanters with their own special class powers, so Fighters shouldn't be broken into such either.

But, we do have Ranger, Paladin, Marshal, and Warlord.  I'd really rather a class not be defined both by feats-from-a-subsection and discrete subclasses.

Fighter needs to be an equal of ranger and pally.  If that can't happen for some reason, Balkanization of generic fighter needs a better vector than "those fighter bonus feats you chose".


Silly aside: Why the hell hasn't Hasbro done D&D Kre-O, or My Little Pony Kre-O?  Take my money, you morons!
We really should consider breaking the wizard down into multiple classes, it's spell list is incredibly bloated these days, paring it down by splitting them off into different classes seems like a good idea.
We really should consider breaking the wizard down into multiple classes

I'm an advocate for eliminating Generalist.

Well actually There'd still be a wizard class, it's just he'd be a class with a defined if versatile spell list. See wizards don't study necromancy or transmutation, they study magic itself. They manipulate things with magic and force magic to take shape. Arcane mark, disjunction, force wall, dispel magic are the powers of his craft. A true wizard wields not the base energies of fire or lightning, but the invisible power of magic itself. A master of counter-magic and wise to the flow of forces unseen.
"Stock Wizard" has essentially been Invoc/Evoc Specialist since roughly 1974.
Aye, and it's time for that to change.

The class has become bloated beyond reason, time to find the 8+ reasonable classes hiding inside the corpulent form of this Cronus of class design.
Sign In to post comments