Been reading the threads for a couple days, and by far my biggest annoyance is the constant griping that fighters are now boring to play. Some people disagree, arguing that you should be doing more roleplay to spice it up, while others argue you shouldn't have to, or that you can't if your DM is jerk. My main annoyance with this entire thing is that nobody is forcing you to play a fighter. If the game comes out, and fighters are much closer to their 1st edition versions (basic attacks, more options from magic items at higher levels), then anybody who wants to play them can do so. And anybody who wants something with more variety can pick a class that has it.
Whereas fourth edition went to great lengths to make each class feel equal in terms of usefulness and complexity, it's easy to forget that this hasn't been the traditional approach for every version of d&d. In older editions, some classes were built to be more complex than others. Some were more powerful at higher levels but took more experience to advance. Playing a ranger was fundimentaly different than playing a wizard in every aspect, not just your options when attacking.
And while fourth edition balanced allot of classes by giving everyone one of four possible roles, it also took away much of the varitey (which was pretty much the main complaint from the community)
5th edition seems to be an attempt to correct that. But by making classes more unique, it will also leave some feeling less complex or underpowered by comparison. I'm not sure there's any way to get around it (though the modular approach seems as good as any)
So at the end of the day, your dwarven fighter will probably have less options than the gnome illusionist hiding behind him. But that's not neccessarily a bad thing. It just may mean it's not the class for everyone.
I've played a fighter in both first and fourth edition, and while my fourth certainly has more options with regards to attacking, he's no more fun to play than my first edition character, and in many ways feels less unique.
There's also the fact that regardless of 4th Fighter's powers, they were actually still just going up and hitting people as well. I mean some of their attacks were just increasing W's of damage. So you'd have maybe a 2W daily at lv 1, and at lv 29 there was a 7W. Guess what, it's the same attack just more damage.
Now that being said, I'm not putting down 4th, I like 4th. But I agree with the OP, it is kinda hearing people complain that the fighter is boring because all he does is hit. There's also the fact that we are testing character creation yet so we don't know all or even some of the options available at creation.
But rewinding back to my initial point, even if the 4th fighter has a power that they hit and knock the person prone that can be done to varying degrees with the fighter now. And yeah most likely there'll be feats to do such things. I've also played a fighter in both 3.5/4th. Actually the same character funny enough. And they played the EXACT same. I move up to an enemy, I attack, I do damage. An odd extra bonus like knocking prone or defense minus here or there but it all amounts to me hitting them. People keep saying that the 4th fighter is so much better because they were given so many options but really they weren't.
That and if you want a character to be interesting, MAKE him interesting don't rely on the class to make your character interesting. My first D&D was my 3.5 fighter and he turned out to be one of my most favorite characters, and in our home game his story was developed to the point where he is a god now who ousted the Raven Queen(or will be...). And he died just a couple games before we finished the 3.5 game. But through other characters and story, he grew even more. And he was just a "simple" 3.5 fighter.
Alright. Let me just put on my polite-argument-hat. So, from what I understand, you say that fighters are simple because of, what, tradition? And because of that tradition, fighters deserve its status, and anyone wishing for a simpler class should go there, variety be damned?
There's an underlying assumption there that I must question. Why are fighters the default, simple choice? Anyone who has any small degree of knowledge of physical combat would know that it is more than a simple exchange of pectoral muscles, yet the system presumes an image of the 'fighter' as a gap-toothed, clumsy, and ugly hulk of beefcake that can do no more than swing a weapon.
Now, if that is your mental image of a fighter, then I suppose I cannot fault you for wishing the class to be uncomplicated and monotone. After all, it simply breaks immersion for such a archetype to concieve anything cunning like 'trip the opponent'.
On the other hand, there exists a portion of the population that considers a fighter to be something along the lines of a competent...fighter, who fights. Man/Woman with weapon, armor, and training. The sort of fighter that these players are looking for is sadly non-existent. These players, myself among them, want to see a fighting machine not completely reliant on pectorals and biceps, but tactical choices, physical maneuvers, and cunning.
We are looking for a different sort of fighter than you are, and frankly, we're not finding it.
As I pointed out on another thread, each class should be as 'useful' as the others, but provide a different experience.
Here's the four archetypes of gaming experience as I see it and have played it:
The Combatant (traditionally, the Fighter) The Caster (traditionally, the Wizard) The All-Rounder (traditionally, the Cleric) The Specialist (traditionally, the Rogue)
Obviously, there are variations - Combatants can include Barbarians and All-Rounders also include Bards and Rangers, for example. But if you choose to play a fighter, it should be as satisfying an experience as playing a wizard, but in a different way.
Let's be honest, the 3.0 and 3.5 Fighters were pretty awful, and magic was broken. But let's suggest not only an improved fighter, but one that's customisable and can be fun whether you play a standard sword-and-board basher or a customised tactics-monster. Now's a good time and place to have this discussion.
@Mogmarine: Thank you for having a readable, and thoughtful post.
Sidenote: There are some who consider the role of the 'combatant' to be shared across all classes. In such schools of thought, the fighter's role is diminished, and often relegated to 'physical wall with legs'. In other words, this is called a 'tank', in somewhat modern lingo. While the rest of the party 'DPS'. Personally I do not agree with such concepts, as the fighter, armed with sword and armor, should be lopping heads off left and right.
Now, onto the thread.
For an improved fighter, let's take the Mearls' words. He wants the fighter to feel like Roland, Beowulf, etc. These are characters who has these qualities: -Brave -Strong -Mentally 'tough' -Cunning -Motivated -Undoutedly heroically powerful
Currently, the fighter has: -strong
There's the traditional bias that a fighting sort of fellow must be mentally deficient, and that may be part of the problem.
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other BarryShow
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic , giving you time to set up your silly combo . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster...
Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil.
And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right?
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players.
And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it.
He/It got me with Light of Sanction , which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad , things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed .
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
@kultz I would have to disagree with your argument about fighters in one respect. While I do like 4th ed fighters, and 5th ed are closer to the old school 2nd ed so far, your character qualities listed for fighters are almost all subjective.
Brave, Cunning, and Motivated are purely role-playing decisions.
Mentally 'tough' is the one I do agree is not normally on most D&D fighters, but this is the player's focus on stats, not the game's.
Being Heroically powerful is already instituted by their strength and the first 3 of your traits that I mentioned from your list, making its mention moot.
Cunning and Mentally 'tough' don't even apply to all heroic characters from myth and fable, and all of them had detrimental flaws. If you want to be cunning, play with a slightly higher intelligence, if you want to be mentally tough, play with a higher wisdom, and if you want to be the lady's man, play with a higher Charisma. Don't assume that the mental attributes are all dump stats, and remember that 11-12 is the average for a human... Most people insist that their characters have no more than one stat lower, so that means ALL characters are extremely powerful compared to the masses.
For an improved fighter, let's take the Mearls' words. He wants the fighter to feel like Roland, Beowulf, etc. These are characters who has these qualities: -Brave -Strong -Mentally 'tough' -Cunning -Motivated -Undoutedly heroically powerful
Currently, the fighter has: -strong
There's the traditional bias that a fighting sort of fellow must be mentally deficient, and that may be part of the problem.
Except that out of that list other than probably Mentally "tough" and heroicly powerful, and strong(which really that and powerful are all the same thing), everything else is purely up to the player. A player shouldn't need a mechanic to make him brave, or motivated. If that's what he wants his character to be then he can play it that way.
There's also the fact that regardless of 4th Fighter's powers, they were actually still just going up and hitting people as well. I mean some of their attacks were just increasing W's of damage. So you'd have maybe a 2W daily at lv 1, and at lv 29 there was a 7W. Guess what, it's the same attack just more damage.
Now that being said, I'm not putting down 4th, I like 4th. But I agree with the OP, it is kinda hearing people complain that the fighter is boring because all he does is hit. There's also the fact that we are testing character creation yet so we don't know all or even some of the options available at creation.
But rewinding back to my initial point, even if the 4th fighter has a power that they hit and knock the person prone that can be done to varying degrees with the fighter now. And yeah most likely there'll be feats to do such things. I've also played a fighter in both 3.5/4th. Actually the same character funny enough. And they played the EXACT same. I move up to an enemy, I attack, I do damage. An odd extra bonus like knocking prone or defense minus here or there but it all amounts to me hitting them. People keep saying that the 4th fighter is so much better because they were given so many options but really they weren't.
That and if you want a character to be interesting, MAKE him interesting don't rely on the class to make your character interesting. My first D&D was my 3.5 fighter and he turned out to be one of my most favorite characters, and in our home game his story was developed to the point where he is a god now who ousted the Raven Queen(or will be...). And he died just a couple games before we finished the 3.5 game. But through other characters and story, he grew even more. And he was just a "simple" 3.5 fighter.
Your mistake is thinking that if a 4e fighter can be played as a 3rd edition one then they are not different. You can play a 4ed fighter for damage, but you can play it in a lot of different ways.
Think about marking, stopping enemy's movement, Come and Get It and a bunch of other powers. The 3e fighter simply doesn't have these opportunities. Fighters should get the equivalent of spells in the form of powers or Tome of Battle maneuvers, otherwise they either become basic attack spammers or "DM may I?" characters.
I see a lot of people tallking about fighters being interesting to play because you have to imagine the actions and improvise. As a player I always hated those who did it. Kicking dirt in the eyes of an enemy is nice if you do it once, or twice, but if you do it all the time it quickly gets as boring as spamming basic attacks. On top of that improvised attacks are always balanced by the DM and I'm against giving too much mechanic rulings in the hands of the DM (and I'm a DM for 50% of the time), because you'll have wild variations.
you loads
