|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 2:53PM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
That won't change a thing. Everyone already knows what the fighter is. The complaint that every class "fights" is a bunch of bupkis. Change the name to warrior and the complaint will become, "every class can be in a war."
And everyone upset because the fighter gets overshadowed in every edition (aside 1) gets to stay upset some more.
Some people just want to complain and nothing will stop them.
Some prefer sticking their heads in the sand and pretending nothing's wrong.
Yep. Some people do. Run across that sort all the time.
I'd rather complain and have it discussed than stick my fingers in my ears and yell "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" every time someone suggests altering an obviously borked facet of the game, let alone (and gods forbid) altering or getting rid of a sacred cow.
So stop complaining about whether or not the fighter is a class and actually discuss something useful. There are lots of small changes to the fighter that would make it a lot better that might actually ge accomplished.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 2:53PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
|
I still think that renaming the Fighter the 'Warrior' would fix a lot of problems.
We already have numerous kinds of Fighters. We have barbarians, rangers, monks, paladins, warlords, and to a lesser extent even the rogue could be considered a fighter. We no longer need such a general term character.
Name it the warrior. That will shut people up about their preconceptions about what a Fighter should be. Now we have the Warrior, which is functionally similar but thematically different and still capable of fulfilling a number of character roles not already covered by other character classes. It'd let them perform more superhuman-type feats without people getting upset.
+1
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here:
http://www.radiancerpg.com
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 2:53PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I agree. Stuff can be add to the fighter, but a major re-fit? Not a chance.
Sometimes I wonder if the person actually made a fighter before bashing the fighter?
The Fighter has been one of my favorite classes mechanically throughout the playtest. You may have noticed I've been a huge fan of Expertise Dice since their introduction.
I don't think they go far enough.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 2:57PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Maybe the best way to handle the 5E Fighter is to add options in the dead levels or go back to Themes. I have been noodling a Fighter/Necromancer concept ever since last May.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 2:57PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I agree. Stuff can be add to the fighter, but a major re-fit? Not a chance.
Sometimes I wonder if the person actually made a fighter before bashing the fighter?
The Fighter has been one of my favorite classes mechanically throughout the playtest. You may have noticed I've been a huge fan of Expertise Dice since their introduction.
I don't think they go far enough.
So what sorts of minor tweaks do you think will get the fighter far enough?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:01PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Maybe the best way to handle the 5E Fighter is to add options in the dead levels or go back to Themes. I have been noodling a Fighter/Necromancer concept ever since last May.
What if there were fighter specific themes/specialties within the class itself to choose from and added some fighterish stuff to the class?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:04PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I agree. Stuff can be add to the fighter, but a major re-fit? Not a chance.
Sometimes I wonder if the person actually made a fighter before bashing the fighter?
The Fighter has been one of my favorite classes mechanically throughout the playtest. You may have noticed I've been a huge fan of Expertise Dice since their introduction.
I don't think they go far enough.
So what sorts of minor tweaks do you think will get the fighter far enough?
I'm not sure there are any that go far enough. But I don't know that there aren't any either.
Fortunately, I'm not resigned to the idea that only minor tweaks are required. Even if they choose to go with only minor tweaks, I still don't think this discussion is wasteful. It's possible that something that seems not-minor now might inform something that could be implemented later.
I do believe that fighters need the equivalent of domain/tradition. Fighting style was allegedly supposed to be that, but domain for example means so much more than just a list of spells that your Cleric has access to. There needs to be that level of depth to the Fighter, somehow, someway.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:13PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Maybe the best way to handle the 5E Fighter is to add options in the dead levels or go back to Themes. I have been noodling a Fighter/Necromancer concept ever since last May.
What if there were fighter specific themes/specialties within the class itself to choose from and added some fighterish stuff to the class?
I think styles were emphasized earlier on in the thread. And they are not really doing that. The Cleric is so insanely flavorful, that it makes vanilla Fighter have no taste at all for some.
I was thinking about stuffing the dead levels with flavor packets.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:23PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I agree. Stuff can be add to the fighter, but a major re-fit? Not a chance.
Sometimes I wonder if the person actually made a fighter before bashing the fighter?
The Fighter has been one of my favorite classes mechanically throughout the playtest. You may have noticed I've been a huge fan of Expertise Dice since their introduction.
I don't think they go far enough.
So what sorts of minor tweaks do you think will get the fighter far enough?
I'm not sure there are any that go far enough. But I don't know that there aren't any either.
Fortunately, I'm not resigned to the idea that only minor tweaks are required. Even if they choose to go with only minor tweaks, I still don't think this discussion is wasteful. It's possible that something that seems not-minor now might inform something that could be implemented later.
I don't think a discussion about tweaks is wasteful, either. I DO think worrying about whether the fighter should be a class IS wasteful, though. It's not going to have a name change. Nor is it going be removed from the game.
I do believe that fighters need the equivalent of domain/tradition. Fighting style was allegedly supposed to be that, but domain for example means so much more than just a list of spells that your Cleric has access to. There needs to be that level of depth to the Fighter, somehow, someway.
I would definately be open to that. It's similar to the idea I put forth a post or two ago. What do you think those styles should add?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:25PM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Maybe the best way to handle the 5E Fighter is to add options in the dead levels or go back to Themes. I have been noodling a Fighter/Necromancer concept ever since last May.
What if there were fighter specific themes/specialties within the class itself to choose from and added some fighterish stuff to the class?
I think styles were emphasized earlier on in the thread. And they are not really doing that. The Cleric is so insanely flavorful, that it makes vanilla Fighter have no taste at all for some.
I was thinking about stuffing the dead levels with flavor packets.
I don't think flavor hidden in the dead levels is going to do much. People can flavor fighters every which way they want already. I think any fix is going to have to be a mechanical fix.
|
|
|
