|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:02PM
#1
|
|
|
One thing 4th Edition did right was making the melee classes as much fun to play as a wizard or a cleric. I was sad to see that this regressed in Next. Even if you don't do it the same way, How about just different ways to attack? Different fighting styles that give different sets of attacks?
I recall a medieval guide to fighting with a sword written by a german author who's name escapes me. It describes multitudes of tricks and stances for melee fighting. Something resembling this would make for some interesting fighter play. One final thought on this matter is making fighting with every weapon different. Even small things like "Using a mace does additional damage to heavy armor" to larger things like "Using an axe gives this ability, only usable with an axe." Just some of my passing idea's.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:03PM
#2
|
|
|
Good thing the fighter in 5e has multiple fighting styles and maneuvers eh?
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:24PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2013
|
Problem is most manouvers are not worth the damage tradeoff in all but a few situations, as well I don't think fighters get anough of them. Really I think fighters should switch from a MDD system to a Manouver Point system where they have maybe 1-4 points to use on manouvers instead of the 6 dice. Manouvers would then specify any dice used. The MDD damage could then be replaced with Weapon Damage so as to have a proper tradeoff between larger and smaller weapons (though it might be too big by default). Perhaps even then a one hander could grant an extra manouver point.
This system would allow fighters to combine chain manouvers without killing their damage. The fighter then becomes less, I'll spend my point on damage, and more how can I spend my points to get the most utility on top of my damage. I think this also works well to represent the fighter as a master of combat as opposed to a simple DPS machine it can fell like now.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:26PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
The things you can do with the current manuever system is so insignificant and redundant to the point of might as well not being there...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:29PM
#5
|
|
|
I wrote the below response in another thread. The TL/DR version is that while the 5e fighter has a lot of maneuvers available, they are all rather mundane and uninspiring. At level 1 a 4e fighter could do basically everything a level 20 5e fighter can and more. Spoiler:
Show
In pre 4e and in 5e, the most effective route to overcoming any combat is simply dealing damage. You could of course improvise, but unless you had a fairly lenient GM the penalties incurred were often no worth the trade off in damage. Pre 4e D&D also had relatively poor guidelines for improvised actions.
In 4e, fighters gained a number of signature maneuvers that they could attempt each fight in the form of encounter powers. While some were similar to their 3e predecessors (an attack that damages a foe and knocks them prone for example has parallels to the trip feats) they benefitted in that there was neither a size restriction or an opposed roll. This allowed these abilites to be more generally useful overall. Additionally, the fighter had access to many abilities that were previously unheard of (come and get it, easy access to whirlwind type attacks, the ability to damage knockback and knockprone multiple enemies at once, and access to conditions that had previously been only in the domain of spellcasters). On top of that by the very nature of these abilities not being usable at-will, fights were more dynamic. The fighter had to choose the appropriate time to utilize his maneuvers to maximize their effect.
Also unlike pre 4e D&D the fighter had a number of at-will capabilities to choose from each with a different outcome. In 3e for example to be effective at tripping you had to invest the majority of your feats into tripping and use a specific weapon. In 4e you simply needed to choose one of many maneuvers available to you. This prevented combats from becoming spammy. Additionally, the removal of the full round attack allowed for more movement and more dynamic combats. Combine this with the fact that most attacks were more than "pure damage" you would often see interesting things happen every turn as a fighter.
The 4e fighter also had a number of class features that made combat more interesting. Marking or the defender aura allowed the fighter to exert control on the battlefield that was unachievable in prior editions. The fighter also had the ability to stop foes movement with their opportunity attacks, many ways to slow enemies, and multiple means of knocking them prone, all more readily available than in other editions. These combined allowed the fighter to have a very unique play experience, far different from other classes. It was in 4e that I actually felt the melee classes actually played differently from one another.
Finally between skill utility powers, skill training, martial practices, and a consolidated skill list the fighter had more out of combat utility than ever before. It was still at the bottom of the totem pole in regards to non-combat capabilities though, but was leaps and bounds ahead of its predacessors.
So now we have 5e. The fighter is lacking in tactical depth or resource management that 4e provided. The best fighter maneuvers the 5e fighter can perform are comprable to low level encounter powers in 4e. The fighter has to trade damage for the use of these maneuvers which is generally a bad decision as damage is king. So basically the choices the 5e fighter has are nonexistent - on his turn the best course of action is always do as much damage as possible. To top things off the 5e fighter has way less out of combat than the 4e fighter. I would put the 5e fighter on par with the 3e fighter in terms of interesting things it is capable of in and out of combat. I was ok playing a game like that 10 years ago, but today I want more. I want to have interesting choices to make in combat, I want to have maneuvers that do "heroic" things, and I want a fighter who has more options and more capabilites at level 20 than the 4e fighter had at level 1.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:40PM
#6
|
|
|
Good thing the fighter in 5e has multiple fighting styles and maneuvers eh?
As many on the thread have already pointed out, the manuevers are rather boring and mundane. As for the weapon abilities I'm talking about, I mean things like axe wielders having "Execute" that maybe allow them to do more damage to prone enemies. Things like that so that when you realize that someone is prone, you get excited about the huge amount of damage you're going to do. This brings up another idea of using abilities in correlation, for example tripping an enemy to make him prone, so you can use the theoretical "Execute" and so on.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:47PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
The battles can be plenty interesting using the tools available, all you need is a well designed encounter. If there is terrain you can interact with, hazzards you need to avoid or push monsters into, ways to disarm an enemy so its difficult or impossible to recover their weapon, the game can be very interesting regardless of what class you are playing.
In any case, I think 5e will have just as many things to do with your figther as 4e did, except not at launch. They will be releasing lots of modules to add new options and rules to the game, which will flesh it out. As it is, it is a huge improvement from 1e-3e
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:49PM
#8
|
|
|
I've found my players forgoing maneuvers, even some of the better ones, just to do more damage. I don't like that kind of thinking. It is somewhat related to roleplaying improvised attacks. "I could dump the boiling hot water over the goblins head, but it's better to just hit him with my axe because it does more damage." I understand why they have martial damage dice, but I'd like to see a slightly better system worked out.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:58PM
#9
|
|
|
I've found my players forgoing manuvers, even some of the better ones, just to do more damage. I don't like that kind of thinking. It is somewhat related to roleplaying improvised attacks. "I could dump the boiling hot water over the goblins head, but it's better to just hit him with my axe because it does more damage." I understand why they have martial damage dice, but I'd like to see a slightly better system worked out.
"Somewhat related to roleplaying improvisd attacks" ......... Funny, that is what I want my players to do - roleplay the fighter, not load up on feats/manuvers and generally just say "I do (insert feat/manuver)" Just my thoughts
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 3:04PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
I tend to like to choose whatever ability does the most damage. Its way more fun to do a lot of damage. I find the fighter absolutely flavorless and boring in appearance. I find it that way for most versions of the fighter.
|
|
|
