Community

I know the word realism is loaded here so just let me say that it is an issue for a lot of people so I'm addressing those concerns.  If you didn't have a problem with the fighter encounter daily system, you probably don't care.

So here some ways to make fighters special....
1.  Make each class of weapon (heavy two handed, one handed sword and shield, dual wielding) have some mechanical difference.   Give feat chains for the different styles that feel different.
2.  Make the fighter able to play a light armored or heavy armored fighter.. Again feat chains would depend on this fact.
3.  Make powers be either at will or immediate reaction only.  
4.  When the enemy gives combat advantage let the fighter do an immediate reaction.
5.  When the enemy misses the fighter by a certain amount let the fighter do another immediate reaction.
6.  When the fighter hits by more than a certain amount let him do a follow-up immediate reaction.
7.  Let fighters do aggro things.  Don't make it automatic.  Give the enemy some way of saving but not a magical effect.  At least not unless the fighter has found a magic item that gives him this ability.
8.  Let the fighter have the non-healing part of the warlord.  Get rid of the warlord (or module him).  Let him move allies around and give them morale bonuses to attack.
9.  Bring back strongholds and followers.  Base it on Charisma.

Instead of having tons of fighter subclass types just let those things be things the fighter can specialize in...
1.  Wilderness survival -> Ranger
2.  Divinity Focus --> Paladin
3.  Stealth and Stealing --> Rogue (Thief)
4.  Stealth and Backstabbing --> Assassin
5.  Unarmed Combat --> Monk

I'd get rid of those extra classes entirely.  They would just be feat chains that are options for the fighter.

There are a lot of ways of making a fighter fun without turning him into a wizard with encounter/daily powers.  


 

Feb 10, 2012 -- 8:52AM, Backspace wrote:

If you bundle all those classes into the fighter, how many classes do you envision the system to have? 3? Fighter, Wizard, Cleric? 

You could also add Psion.

I'd like to see fewer classes and more paths.  Fighter, Wizard, Cleric.   Yeah maybe there is a way for wizards to be all feat at-will, encounter based with one build and vancian with another.  Same for Cleric.   I agree if Psionics are in the game then Psion is another type.

I think spell lists should drive class.  Fighter - No spell list,  Wizard - arcane list, Cleric - divine list,  Psion - pionic list.
Otherwise feats/options should define your customization further.


Also I would add even more variation than just the classes I mentioned.  My missile weapon as a fighter could define me.   Additional skill/background based packages of feats.   There could be some crossover too.  A rangerish paladin for example.  I think fighters should have some way to add in a little magic/divine/psion too using feats without multiclassing.  Multiclassing still available for the true full separation of powers types. (3e style I suppose).


 

Well I was asked what was ideal and I answered.  I wouldn't hate base classes like these - Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Psion.   My only issue is that Rogue is too form fitting.  Not every lightly armored Rogue is a Rogue in this system.  So naming wise maybe it's -->  Fighter, Light Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Psion.   Even so some of the feat chains would then be accessible to more than just the Fighter.   Maybe the light Fighter can be a paladin too.  

Anyway.   I would be happy with a base core of classes and everything else be feat, and feat chain driven.  

I'm for retraining rules too but only at a cost. 

Feb 10, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

Yea... this doesn't sound like it captures the spirit of D&D (which is the whole point of 5e). It is interesting! I am sure it could make for a great RPG. But like 4e, I think it might step too far from the bounds of what makes D&D the thing it is. Having a fighter, thief, wizard, cleric, ranger, paladin, assassin, bard, and psion classes is sort of iconic.

Only since 3e.  Those iconic classes were the base in the early days.  Also I would allow for all those classes, they would just be builds.  You wouldn't call yourself a Fighter with the paladin feat chain.  Just Paladin would be fine.

Feb 10, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

That being said, I do think the various classes should be given talent trees of abilities that are similar to what you described:

Ranger: wilderness survival and guerrilla combat that makes use of natural environments.
Paladin: divine blessings and auras that enhance combat capability. 
Thief: stealth and stealing--less focus on damage and more focus on tricks that can be used to crowed control from stealth / deal with exploration based challenges.
Assassin: Stealth, poisons, and backstabbing--the typical 4e striker / larker / glass cannon.
Monk: Unarmed combat.

Yeah I like this

Feb 10, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

I'm for retraining rules too but only at a cost.

If that cost is anything other than "some GMs might require that you use a trainer, and that trainer might charge you X sum of coin for their services," that cost is potentially a deal breaker for me. I hate system mastery. I don't want to see elements of the game cater to system mastery. Charging players for making tweaks to their characters (because they didn't fully understand the ramifications of their choices when those choices were first made) reeks of an element designed to cater to system mastery.

I want system mastery but I want the gap to not be too great.  I want changing to just be bad enough that flippant changes every level are not common.   Think about it and make a decision but don't just do it willy nilly.  It is already harming realism doing it at all.  Don't make it into a mockery.   I guess serious money to a trainer might be ok.