Community

In a sentence, it's simple:

The Fighter is already amazing in combat and the developers are only talking about adding the combat elements of the Warlord.

What does that mean?

We've had several threads discussing the issues with the Fighter and only a VERY small number of people have had anything much negative to say about Fighters in combat.  When there is a fight going on the Fighter class is just fine (maybe TOO fine...).

The ISSUE has been that in the exploration and interaction elements of the game many people see the Fighter as nearly useless.  While there ARE things which they can do (like the "Aid Another" action) you are flat out better having any other class in the game at the table if there isn't a fight going on.

If anything the Fighter is already TOO GOOD in combat, adding more combat abilities and flexibility onto the class is only going to make that worse.  This is an issue if only because it's an easy justification to keep the Fighter entirely off the ladder when it comes to exploration and interaction.




And STOP.

Before you even TRY to argue "but Fighters get backgrounds", like I'm some kind of idiot, DON'T.

I KNOW that Fighters get backgrounds.

But so does every other class AND every other class (even the blinking Barbarian for the love of pity!) gets class abilities which assist in the exploration and/or interaction "pillars" AS WELL as solid combat ability.  

So "Fighters get backgrounds" does NOTHING to help the comparison, nor negate the fact that EVERY OTHER CLASS is better than a Fighter if there isn't combat going on.  Which is great for the pizza and softdrinks supply but pretty cruddy for anyone who likes playing Fighters.




The bitter, BITTER irony of all this is that we KNOW that it doesn't have to be this way.

The absolutely best, most effective in AND out of combat, Fighter ever written for D&D (who could actually defend OR deal huge damage AND was still useful when fights weren't happening) existed at the SAME TIME as a full and functional Warlord class and the two NEVER STEPPED ON ONE ANOTHERS TOES.

We CAN have a great Fighter AND a great Warlord in the same edition at the same time. 




What the Fighter NEEDS is some out-of-combat utility powers and another skill, tying both in to his Fighting Style would be a GREAT idea (and neatly dodges the "how DARE you pidgeonhole my unique sonwflake Fighter" effect) and would ACTUALLY make the class better.

And you don't need to touch the Warlord.

Or repeat the mistakes of the 3.5 to 4th changeover. 

Mar 13, 2013 -- 12:09AM, rampant wrote:

Aye, that duelist vs. bodygaurd vs. soldier stuff would work so much better as the delivery method for the OOC abilities, than as straight jackets for maneuvers.

Exactly.

There is HUGE potential in those Fighting Styles.

Currently NONE of it is being realised. 

Mar 13, 2013 -- 12:20AM, ClockworkNecktie wrote:

Your clear arguments and clever mechanical suggestions inspire me, Admiral, and have thus restored 4d8 of my hit points.

Exactly.

You didn't need "healing" because (whatever Mearls thinks) your hand wasn't off and your bowels weren't spooling at your feet.

You just had a few scratches and bruises and were feeling a bit battered and demoralised.

Rallied, you can fight on! 

I will say that in that podcast I don't think Mearls and co ever suggested that warlordesque maneuvers would make up for fighters sucking OOC - I think that was mostly just SleepsInTraffic on the forums. The official thinking seems to be mostly that the tactical side of the warlord seems fightery and the inspiration seems bardy.