Community

Well, Kaldric, 5e is supposed to be about options, and those /are/ options.  Rather a nice range, really.  You can have anything from the Frodo Baggins whose all about being the Ringbearer, to the bad-ass heroic warrior who blocks dragonbreath and death rays with his shield and cuts purple worms in half - lengthwise.

The main issue I have is they need to decouple the combat choices from the non-combat choices. In All editions your class determined what your skills were and what kind of feats you got. So it was difficult to build a fighter that wasn't a brutish anti-socialite, or a bard that wasn't good with people.

If they did this then they could build a third major grouping. First we have the race grouping (which needs to be changed to species or sub-species for political reasons), then we have the class grouping. Next we need a background grouping that determines how many and which skills you get as well as giving you a list of feats to choose from that are seperate from combat feats (though they might prove beneficial in rare combat circumsances).

For instance:
Elf - Smart, nimble.
Fighter - physical warrior that is a master of weapons (using my choose your primary and secondary stats from above, they can be weak, but smart. They can be charismatic but unhealthy.)
Politician - Is granted all of the socials skills as well as a choice of 1-2 others. Gets to choose from feats that grant bonuses in negotiations and knowledge checks involving politics, cultures, and social structures.

or you might have:
Half-Orc - Strong, hardy.
Wizard - Master of bending the forces of magic to their will (using the above, they could be a strength wizard, or a constitution wizard, or whatever).
Athlete - Gets all of the physical type skills as well as a choice of 1-2 others. Gets to choose from feats that grant athletic prowess.

This of course only works if you get combat based feats that are seperate from skill based feats.

I imagine a progression of feats something like this:
1st- 1 combat feat, 1 non-combat feat
2nd - 1 combat feat
3rd - 1 noncombat feat
4th - ability increase (or other meaningful choice)
5th - 1 combat feat
6th - 1 noncombat feat
etc..etc..

Once we completely seperate the skill aspect from the class aspect of the game, then we can start having true variety.

Hmmm... I might make a game that does that already.... Nevermind WotC carry on, nothing to see here (unless you want to hire me.)

May 1, 2012 -- 7:13AM, Jim11735 wrote:

I don't want "Powers" giving high level fighters highlight reel combat rounds, I want the game explained in fluff and crunch that high level fighters can pull off these awesome examples people have given.  Throw Statue is a lame Power, but some reference to making a Strength based skill check to toss incredible... fantasty incredible sized objects would be cool.  I want fantasy realism, that sounds wrong even as I type it but I think it conveys my point.

I just keep getting this image of the dwarf tossing scene in LotR. Although, I find projectile halfling rogues to be one hell of a combat strategy.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Areleth wrote:

I can see the similarity and I'll even admit that there's some hypocrisy (Is that the right term here? I'm not sure.) in seeing the Fighter being defined by his magic sword, while I don't see the Wizard as being defined by his magic book. But part of it just goes back to the fact that it was a magic-user (usually) who made that sword, and without that sword the Fighter is borderline worthless against challenges scaled to his level. So the Fighter remains a warrior defined by how much help he got from a Wizard. The Wizard, to my thinking, has a spellbook that he wrote himself. He researched and scribed all of his mighty spells, and you could say that he truly 'owns' his own power.

In 1e and 2e, the ONLY reason you needed to have magic weapons as a fighter was to be able to harm creatures immune to normal or low magic weaponry.  However, that dependance didn't mean that somehow the fighter was defined by his magic sword.  There Mayor didn't come out and thank the magic sword and the fighter it had for saving his daughter from the wererats.  He thanked Joban the Warrior for freeing his daughter. 

3e and 4e made magic weaponry even less necessary.  Damage reduction in 3e was so low it was a joke, and 4e doesn't have damage reduction at all.  And only 4e required characters to have the +1 to +5 in order to be able to hit the AC of the creatures encountered, and you could use inherent bonuses instead of magic weapons if you wished.  1e-3e had ACs that varied a great deal and it wasn't that hard to hit things with just the bonuses provided by your class, and feats (3e).

There was only one time that magic weaponry defined the person holding it, and that was when the player wanted his character to be defined by it. 

Its not like I hate magic swords or family heirlooms, its the influence of outside powers involved. A Wizard essentially creates his own power, where the Fighter who relies on magic items is being given power. I want that sword to be powerful because the man behind it makes it so, if you catch my drift.

Except that wizards didn't make every magic sword in existence.  Gods can create them.  NPC Dwarves can forge them.  I think there were 3e prestige classes that can make magic weaponry without being a wizard/sorcerer.  There are lots of ways for magic swords to come into existence in the game world that don't involve wizards or PCs.  The sword your fighter found could easily be one of them.

One thing about fighting types in general is if they are using daily or encounter abilities, that these abilities all be reliable. Honestly I don't think fighters should have daily, but should have encounter powers. If they do have daily abilities they should be totally crazy in scope, such as a charge attack that he can run through a group of creatures, take no oppertunity attacks, and get a swipe at every single one of them on the way.

Wizards launch thier spells, and lose them right after, a fighter only loses them if they actually connect. I like it for flavor reasons as it removes some of the suspension of disbelief of limited use abilities for the fighter (although I do understand the ingame context of that). But it is something that upps the figher just that bit more.

Wizard launches 6th level spell and loses it no matter the outcome, fighter only loses his manuver use if it actually connects.

I also believe as many others have said is that fighters should have a higher hit percentage.