|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:43PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
This whole thread is just a fun excercise of "what if?" 
No, it's not. I have the very specific goal of trying to get the Fighter to a point where it actually deserves to be called a class. It doesn't, right now. I know I know, you think it does, but you still haven't answered in any detail as to why you think that, despite me asking repeatedly. I'm not doing this to be a jerk or be rhetorical or have a fun "what if?" session, I am looking for real, tangible things to convince me that I'm wrong to expect the Fighter to limp along to yet another edition.
Please, please, explain why you keep asserting that the Fighter is a class, and that the things that up until now have defined the Fighter are compelling and sufficient. Because I don't see it, and I won't as long as you don't cough up some details rather than just contradicting.
A noble goal, but one that is doomed to failure. You're fooling yourself if you think this thread will result in a major re-write of the fighter class. Your better off trying to get abilities tweaked or maybe one or two new ones added.
I've given my reasons for why I think the fighter is a class. All you do is keep asking me why. I stopped the "why" game with my daughter when she was small and I'm not playing it here.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:43PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
This is one of the reasons that I think the Fighting Style feature needs to be so much more than just a collection of maneuvers. They should come with special features and abilities that truly evoke the theme of the specific Fighter archetype that you're creating. For example, let the Duelist get a bump or two on the damage dice of Finesse weapons, better AC or resistance in light or no armor, a movement bump, and so on. Essentially, let the Style be the "soul" of the class that, as Mand suggests, is missing from the Fighter in every edition.
I think the OP wants the definition to have no mechanical support.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:44PM
#93
|
|
|
Well it looks like the designers have thought of the core, with AC, attacks, HP, etc., & then built how combat "works."
Then they design a class around the task-resolution of the core. And all classes perform combat per the combat rules.
The fighter seems like the first guy they look at when they consider how he attacks or pulls off a maneuver.
And after thinking it through, we get "roll d20 to make an attack. Fighters get +2; wizards get +0."
So the fighter's design space is locked in by assumptions of combat task resolution and bounded accuracy.
So we get a fighter that operates within those bounds and has "no soul." He's not a class.
IMO, fighter should be the class that BREAKS the standard combat/bounded-accuracy core assumptions. Everyone else fights by the book - fighter's class is a new book - a better book. Not merely +2, but a different interaction entirely!
No attack roll? The fighter always, always hits and deals damage. Now we give him battle control type of things like throws, pins, pushes, trips etc.
Sure that's probably not a great idea, but this is the class that begs for a different way to do combat than everyone else.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:44PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
This is one of the reasons that I think the Fighting Style feature needs to be so much more than just a collection of maneuvers. They should come with special features and abilities that truly evoke the theme of the specific Fighter archetype that you're creating. For example, let the Duelist get a bump or two on the damage dice of Finesse weapons, better AC or resistance in light or no armor, a movement bump, and so on. Essentially, let the Style be the "soul" of the class that, as Mand suggests, is missing from the Fighter in every edition.
I think the OP wants the definition to have no mechanical support.
I have no idea why you think I think this.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:45PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Only if the DM is a jerk and doesn't let them use their preferred weapon.
You aren't thinking clearly. There are tons of legitimate stories that involve weapons not being accessible for a time. No need to be a jerk at all.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:45PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
"slightly more resistant to DM being a jerk"
I would SO take that feat.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:46PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Only if the DM is a jerk and doesn't let them use their preferred weapon.
Or conveniently always lets them use their pet weapon.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:46PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Yes, disarming the party is something that happens. But then isn't the Wizard who can still use Shocking Grasp the best at fighting?
You can't use the edge cases to define a class. The core of the class has to be meaningful and compelling in the bulk of encounters, adventures, campaigns. Otherwise the class design needs to be improved.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:49PM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Yes, disarming the party is something that happens. But then isn't the Wizard who can still use Shocking Grasp the best at fighting?
Until the escape and the fighter picks up a weapon maybe.
You can't use the edge cases to define a class. The core of the class has to be meaningful and compelling in the bulk of encounters, adventures, campaigns. Otherwise the class design needs to be improved.
Mand, many of us LIKE the fighter the way it is. It IS compelling to us. Just because it's not compelling to you and some others does not make it a failed class. To me the druid, bard, barbarian and monk classes are just not compelling.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 12:49PM
#100
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I have no idea why you think I think this.
..... It would take a vastly more complicated weapon-vs-weapon combat system in order to get weapon variation to be something that's actually useful, and when my entire thread is about how the Fighter has a giant gaping hole instead of a core concept, the idea that that giant gaping hole can be fixed with a complicated extra rules layer is simply unacceptable.
If you are looking for the Soul of the Fighter, then you are looking for something that can't be found mechanically.
|
|
|
