Fighters are boring

[akaddk]

There seems to be a few people who think that the vanilla fighter presented in the basic rules is lacking in flavour and texture and amounts to a monotonous sludge of boringness. I have argued against these people all to no avail. In fact, I'm so out of arguments that I think they might've convinced me that they're right. It's a terrible burden to be someone who can be swayed by evidence, logic and reason. It really takes all the fun out of arguing on the internet.

Anyway, early on in the playtest process I advocated for making manoeuvres standard in the core rules for everyone, but allowing fighters to take especial advantage of their skill and training in combat to exploit such manoeuvres as part of their non-subclass design. This would be my solution to their boringness.

My question is, what is your solution or is there even any solution at all?

[Fwiffo86]

There seems to be a few people who think that the vanilla fighter presented in the basic rules is lacking in flavour and texture and amounts to a monotonous sludge of boringness. I have argued against these people all to no avail. In fact, I'm so out of arguments that I think they might've convinced me that they're right. It's a terrible burden to be someone who can be swayed by evidence, logic and reason. It really takes all the fun out of arguing on the internet.

Anyway, early on in the playtest process I advocated for making manoeuvres standard in the core rules for everyone, but allowing fighters to take especial advantage of their skill and training in combat to exploit such manoeuvres as part of their non-subclass design. This would be my solution to their boringness.

My question is, what is your solution or is there even any solution at all?

I offer what I do.

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

Solves the multi-class issue, a MC fighter will never be as good at fighting as full fighter. Gives fighters something no other class can have. Makes fighters EXTREMELY dangerous when they get in your face. (hard to cast when your on your back).

Everyone else has something else. Pallys have auras and spells, Rangers have pets and spells, etc. They are not fighters. They lose in these contests.

Fighter wins in the following:
Disarm
Trip
Shield Bash (see bullrush or trip)
Bull rushing
Feint

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.

[akaddk]

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.
That's staggeringly simple and yet almost beautiful in its simplicity.

I'm not sure I agree that it isn't overpowered though but I guess it's something I'd have to see the effects of in game before deciding. It certainly sounds extremely powerful at first blush.

How do you resolve contests between fighters or monsters of equivalent strength?

[Knaight]

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

So, basically the system just gets bypassed entirely. Not only is this not relevant to what the system actually has in it, it seems questionably functional. A level 1 fighter automatically disarming a level 20 barbarian or similar just seems absurd.

As for the actual system - yes, Fighters are boring. That's not really a problem, as some people like boring, and they are at least capable of contributing this time. One persons meaningful mechanical options is another person's pointless busywork.

[Callin]

So the Champion is boring. Not the fighter. I can sort of get behind this but its not supposed to be multidimensional. Its the basic of the basic. For people who dont play Table Tops. Who its their first character. Sure he gets some nice things. Extra crit is nice, better physical skills, a SECOND Fighting Style, and Fast Healing 5+Con when under half hp. Thats nothing fancy but its not shabby either. Its basic and for basic I personally dont feel that its bad. The fighter wants versatility then take a diverse background that gives better skills. Spread out your stat increases.

[Tengu_temp]

To stop fighters from being boring, the first thing you need to do is fix the mindset with which they're designed - the mindset of pandering to grognards who think only spellcasters should have options, and if you're a fighter all you need to do is auto-attack. Tome of Battle didn't do that, DND 4e didn't do that, many non-DND RPGs don't do that - and guess what, grognards don't like any of them!

I hate the mindset of "fighter should be simple and easy, it's a class for noobs and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". It's arrogant and condescending, and makes you look down on people who like to play physical characters. It's also way too common among people who like oldschool gaming.

[da_chicken]

As for the actual system - yes, Fighters are boring. That's not really a problem, as some people like boring, and they are at least capable of contributing this time. One persons meaningful mechanical options is another person's pointless busywork.

Pretty much this. I find it astonishing, but a significant portion of the D&D population really does just want to move and attack every turn, find as much loot as they can carry, and blow it all on ale and whores. I predict the Champion Fighter will consistently be one of the most popular choices at D&D Encounters.

[Squirrel_Dude]

There seems to be a few people who think that the vanilla fighter presented in the basic rules is lacking in flavour and texture and amounts to a monotonous sludge of boringness. I have argued against these people all to no avail. In fact, I'm so out of arguments that I think they might've convinced me that they're right. It's a terrible burden to be someone who can be swayed by evidence, logic and reason. It really takes all the fun out of arguing on the internet.

Anyway, early on in the playtest process I advocated for making manoeuvres standard in the core rules for everyone, but allowing fighters to take especial advantage of their skill and training in combat to exploit such manoeuvres as part of their non-subclass design. This would be my solution to their boringness.

My question is, what is your solution or is there even any solution at all?So, here's the unfortunate thing about the fighter since 3rd edition. The reason the class can't be saved from being boring. The class seems to be of designed from the ground up to be a boring and generic blank slate of a class that the player can impart whatever character they want on it. He's not generic in spite of the design efforts by the dev teams, but on purpose. Apparently that is some niche that needs to be filled.


Let's be clear, I'm not talking about how fighters are boring because they're weak mechanically. They're boring because they're boring mechanically.

[akaddk]

So the Champion is boring. Not the fighter.
No. Forget the sub-classes entirely. Compare the base fighter class to the base of other classes.

[A Stray Cat]

Isn't the fighter's plight an artifact of its being the base class from which all others have been differentiated?

[Callin]

Ok then lets see what we got

Cleric- 9th Level Casting, Channel Divinity 3/Short Rest, Destroy Undead, Divine Intervention,

Fighter- 1 Fighting Style, 4 Attacks, the Ability to Reroll Saves 3/day, 2 Action Surges/Short Rest.

Rogue- Expertise, Thieves Cant (pfft I mean how is this a class feature?), Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge (I like this), Cunning Action, Evasion, Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive, and Stroke of Luck (Wow thats alot of different ablilities)

Wizard- 9th Level Casting, Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell.

So YEA they are all pretty basic with the ROGUE actually getting the most base Class Features. Fighter, Wizard and Cleric Tie if you count Spell Casting.. and I feel you should. So yea fighters are the ones with the least Versatility when it comes to Class Features but its only the Base Barebones Class. Nothing wrong with their abilities. The man fights. Its what he does, and his abilities allow him to do that well. More attacks than ANYONE at lvl 20 with a Burst of 8 Attacks in a round two rounds in a row. So in 2 rounds you attack 16 times.... yea thats going to smart.

Its like comparing a Sugar Cookie to an Oatmeal Raisin. Its plain, its simple and it took less time to prepare, but it can still be just as good to the taste buds as that Oatmeal Raisin Cookie.

[TheOOB]

The fighter in the basic rules is boring, but in the players handbook we'll have different martial paths and feats to play with.

As for the champion being boring, that's working as intended. The game need simple and streamlined characters, characters that don't require a lot of decision making to play. Different players have different levels of investment, some players just want to hang out with their friends and don't care that much about the game, so they want something easy to play, or they are interested in the story, but not the mechanics that much. Thus there should be an option for those people that is still useful to the party, without requiring a lot if any tough choices.

[Sartharina]

Ok then lets see what we got

Cleric- 9th Level Casting, Channel Divinity 3/Short Rest, Destroy Undead, Divine Intervention,

Fighter- 1 Fighting Style, 4 Attacks, the Ability to Reroll Saves 3/day, 2 Action Surges/Short Rest.

Rogue- Expertise, Thieves Cant (pfft I mean how is this a class feature?), Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge (I like this), Cunning Action, Evasion, Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive, and Stroke of Luck (Wow thats alot of different ablilities)

Wizard- 9th Level Casting, Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell.

So YEA they are all pretty basic with the ROGUE actually getting the most base Class Features. Fighter, Wizard and Cleric Tie if you count Spell Casting.. and I feel you should. So yea fighters are the ones with the least Versatility when it comes to Class Features but its only the Base Barebones Class. Nothing wrong with their abilities. The man fights. Its what he does, and his abilities allow him to do that well. More attacks than ANYONE at lvl 20 with a Burst of 8 Attacks in a round two rounds in a row. So in 2 rounds you attack 16 times.... yea thats going to smart.

Its like comparing a Sugar Cookie to an Oatmeal Raisin. Its plain, its simple and it took less time to prepare, but it can still be just as good to the taste buds as that Oatmeal Raisin Cookie.

You forgot the self-healing! And weapon swapping, though the loss of weapon-based powers is something I find annoying.

[Pex]

I offer what I do.

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

Solves the multi-class issue, a MC fighter will never be as good at fighting as full fighter. Gives fighters something no other class can have. Makes fighters EXTREMELY dangerous when they get in your face. (hard to cast when your on your back).

Everyone else has something else. Pallys have auras and spells, Rangers have pets and spells, etc. They are not fighters. They lose in these contests.

Fighter wins in the following:
Disarm
Trip
Shield Bash (see bullrush or trip)
Bull rushing
Feint

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.

Point taken but too powerful. As powerful as spells are, you do get a saving throw. Every paladin loses and dies at the hand of Evil McFighter Evilness because they are automatically tripped and disarmed, poof, done, then slaughtered.

[Person_Man]

The 5E Fighter is specifically designed to be simple, because there is a sub-set of D&D players who like playing a very simple class. When they added slightly more complicated class features in the play test, this vocal minority complained about it bitterly, and so they took them out. My guess is that one of the Fighter subclasses will have slightly more maneuver-ish or combat expertise dice options, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Having said that, I don't like the 5E Fighter design either. There are ways that you can have simple options that are also more powerful and more flexible. For example, they could have made Action Surge and Second Wind once per encounter and not once per Short Rest (1 hour). They could could have made renamed Fighting Style and had the bonus apply to all attack rolls and Athletics checks (which would have helped with Grapple and Shove). They could have given him more Ability Score increases (and thus more chances for Feats, which are far more useful in 5E). And so on.

[Sartharina]

The fighter already has the most Ability Score increases/chances for feats out of all the classes.

[Human Paragon 3]

The 5E Fighter is specifically designed to be simple, because there is a sub-set of D&D players who like playing a very simple class. .

This is exactly right. Some players want a character that just attacks and is good at it, that they don't have to think hard about - so they can walk up to a goblin with a big sword and roll a d20 that makes that goblin dead.

Some people have a lot of fun doing that. I think it's important to give them that option.

If you don't like it, you can play a different class. You can multi-class, or play the maneuver fighter, or both. Play the eldritch knight archetype. Multiclass barbarian and rogue. Or use fighter as a dip. There are many ways for players who crave tactical and strategic challenge (people like us on the optimization board that want our intellects challenged every round, so we can feel like we are GOOD AT D&D). The system supports us.

It also supports people who just want to hit people with pointy sticks. This is a good thing.

[Knaight]

I hate the mindset of "fighter should be simple and easy, it's a class for noobs and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". It's arrogant and condescending, and makes you look down on people who like to play physical characters. It's also way too common among people who like oldschool gaming.

Fighters and martial classes in general are not the same thing. Meanwhile, "simply and easy" doesn't mean that it is for "noobs" and "people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". Plenty of people with tons of RPG experience favor simple systems. Plenty of very smart people favor simple systems. Moreover, the Fighter being a good class for new people - and it looks like it is back to that - hardly precludes it from also being a good class for more veteran players.

[Tengu_temp]

Fighters and martial classes in general are not the same thing. Meanwhile, "simply and easy" doesn't mean that it is for "noobs" and "people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". Plenty of people with tons of RPG experience favor simple systems. Plenty of very smart people favor simple systems. Moreover, the Fighter being a good class for new people - and it looks like it is back to that - hardly precludes it from also being a good class for more veteran players.

You approach this from a rational point of view, but this doesn't change the fact that anti-fighter bias is alive and well. People who harbor it don't often say it aloud, but between the lines what they think is obvious: fighter is the class for noobs and dumb jocks (dumb jock class for a dumb jock player), smart people (like them) "graduate" to playing spellcasters. As long as designers pander to the group which harbors this bias, fighter will be a boring class.

[Tholomyes]

I'd wait to give final judgement until I've seen the full version, and even until I've seen it in play, for a bit, but I think there are ways to make the fighter not so boring while still making them hold something of their flavor-neutral feel to them. I feel that one necessity for this is to give both meaningful choices in build, but also meaningful choices in character building. In 3e, there were reasonably meaningful choices in build, but in play, you tended to do one thing over and over. Often times this was just full-attacking, but even with more nuanced builds, this was still the case. Trip-masters, for example, still followed the paradigm of Trip the opponent, and reap tons of opportunity attacks. But you could still effectively play combat on auto-pilot. That is honestly my biggest problem with martial-caster disparity in that edition. Not that casters are more powerful, but that they have options. Were it Martials, who were absurdly powerful, and the casters who fell behind, I'd still prefer casters, mechanically, due to their options.

5e could solve this with the battlemaster fighter, and feats, but the issue is that there will need to be support in future books. Based on the number of feats and maneuvers that are expected in the PHB, I can easily see the Battlemaster devolve into the 3e Trip-master, where they are conceptually more interesting, but in practice, they still can be played on auto-pilot.

The second thing which I think is important is, if they're going to be doing something that every other class can do (only better), make sure that they're better in a way that makes them play differently than other classes.

For example, I had a Homebrew system that I was working on for a while (actually, before 5e, despite some mechanical similarities), where all martial characters (and some casters, such as battle clerics) had Martial Maneuver dice, with which they could perform maneuvers (either 'basic', which were available to everyone, or 'advanced' which were given or chosen by class). Without boring people with too much of the details on how it worked, the short version was that for most maneuvers, you didn't spend dice to perform the manuevers, but instead rolled versus a target number (based on the specific maneuver) to see if you lost a Maneuver die. Even if you lost the die, you'd still perform the maneuver (albeit with a slight penalty).

Despite the fact that this maneuver system was something all martials used (and most had additional class features on top of maneuvers), fighters still played differently than other classes, because they had more dice, better dice, and an inherent across-the-board reduction on the target numbers for maneuvers. Rather than conserving their manuever dice for important moments, Fighters were more safe in using maneuvers each round, and potentially risking performing more difficult maneuvers

I'm not certain how 5e could solve this issue for non-battlemaster fighters (who, unless the maneuver system is expanded to other classes, doesn't suffer this problem as much), but I think there's the possibility for adding feats which add conditions on successful attacks. Thus, since the fighter gets the most attacks, it's more able to attack multiple targets, thus spreading the conditions to more foes (though to be honest, this specific solution is probably more thematic for the monk, and mechanically, the monk gets to flurry for extra attacks, anyway)

The third thing which I think is important (and the one I saved for last, because, honestly, 5e seems to be doing fairly well with it, anyway), is to make sure that the fighter isn't just about combat. Or, at least, that a character whose class is fighter, still has non-combat utility. Fortunately, the addition of backgrounds, and the fact that the fighter isn't nearly as bad in the skill-game as in previous editions seem to make this less of an issue. True, there are still spells which obsolete skills, somewhat, but with the reduction in spells per day (as well as the fact that you can't just throw it into a single low-level spell slot, but have to use a more limited resource on it), and the fact that wands of knock et al won't be an issue as much any more, mean that skills still play a role, even at higher levels.

-------------------------

As a bit of an aside, I want to say I don't dislike the notion of having a more simple option for people who don't want to deal with more complex options such as casters. However, that being said, the argument of "Fighters should be boring (or simple, or what have you), because some people like that" isn't one I can get behind. I've played a lot of fighters in the past. I'd say they're probably my most common class I play, simply because they fit thematically with the type of character I like to play. I remember one of my first characters came about because I saw everyone maligning the "Big Dumb Human Fighter" concept, so I decided to turn it on it's head. Yeah, he's a human. Yeah, he's a fighter. Yeah, he's got high Str and Con. Yeah his Int and Cha are pretty low (well, at least his Cha; I still wanted the skill points, and he still wasn't above a 10 Int), but he has an interesting backstory and characterization, and he's got more going for him than the Elven Wizard who decides to go fight goblins, because... reasons. And so I sat down to play him, and was bored out of my mind, because for all the work I'd done to make him interesting, he still ran on autopilot, during fights, and didn't have the skills to keep up with the Bard in the skill game, and didn't have the utility of the casters in the party, so I ended up retiring him, despite him still being one of my favorite characters, conceptually and backstory wise, to this day.

[Doug Lampert]

The 5E Fighter is specifically designed to be simple, because there is a sub-set of D&D players who like playing a very simple class. When they added slightly more complicated class features in the play test, this vocal minority complained about it bitterly, and so they took them out. My guess is that one of the Fighter subclasses will have slightly more maneuver-ish or combat expertise dice options, but we'll just have to wait and see.

The thing is, if ALL the fighter maneuvers were available freely to all fighters then that doesn't make the fighter any less capable of walking up to people and whacking them.

Trip, grapple, parry, protecting a nearby ally, ...
ALL of these should be available to EVERY trained combatant! These aren't special maneuvers or skills, these are baseline competence at combat. Every fighter type should have all of them for free, and then the people who want to ignore them can do so, they don't waste time choosing maneuvers they won't use, because they get all the maneuvers for free. They don't need to do anything more than walk up to people and hit them, because they're still good at that.

You don't NEED to separate out maneuvers to have a simple to build and simple to play fighter. Make the maneuvers the complicated fighter gets be something that CAN'T be done by any idiot whose spent six months in a dojo a couple of hours each week!

[Tholomyes]

The thing is, if ALL the fighter maneuvers were available freely to all fighters then that doesn't make the fighter any less capable of walking up to people and whacking them.

Trip, grapple, parry, protecting a nearby ally, ...
ALL of these should be available to EVERY trained combatant! These aren't special maneuvers or skills, these are baseline competence at combat. Every fighter type should have all of them for free, and then the people who want to ignore them can do so, they don't waste time choosing maneuvers they won't use, because they get all the maneuvers for free. They don't need to do anything more than walk up to people and hit them, because they're still good at that.

You don't NEED to separate out maneuvers to have a simple to build and simple to play fighter. Make the maneuvers the complicated fighter gets be something that CAN'T be done by any idiot whose spent six months in a dojo a couple of hours each week! I agree wholeheartedly with this, as an idea, but the only issue I have is, in practice, it often results in maneuvers which are so situationally dependent that they're rarely used. A potential option would be to have the battlemaster style maneuvers (maybe scaled back a tad, but still either strictly or usually better than the opportunity cost of just attacking) be standard to all classes. However, you gain static bonuses for having unspent Superiority dice, so someone who wants to play a simple fighter doesn't feel like they're giving up too much, by sticking to their preferred playstyle; They just ignore the fact that they have this resource of superiority dice, and factor the static bonuses into their character sheet.

Then a fighter who chooses to further specialize in maneuvers, can choose to boost up the basic ones into better maneuvers, via feats or subclasses.

[JusticeZero]

The class seems to be of designed from the ground up to be a boring and generic blank slate of a class that the player can impart whatever character they want on it...
I'd be okay with that if the Fighter actually had the resources and options to fulfill that, but in practice, the fighter is not only boring at its root, but also condemned to boringness. You can't kick it up to fill the interesting concepts that might call for a blank slate effectively.

[TheOOB]

I'd be okay with that if the Fighter actually had the resources and options to fulfill that, but in practice, the fighter is not only boring at its root, but also condemned to boringness. You can't kick it up to fill the interesting concepts that might call for a blank slate effectively.

You don't have the full rules for the game or the fighter yet, and as mentioned, the class being "boring" is the point. If you want a class with more play and build options, the Champion Fighter isn't for you.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

The fighter already has the most Ability Score increases/chances for feats out of all the classes.

This. Cleric gets 5, Fighter gets 7, Rogue gets 6, and Wizard gets 5. All of the interesting fighter abilities are going to come from the feats they take, similar to 3rd edition. Even when feats aren't used, a fighter is going to have awesome stats, and if he gets to pick and choose magic items he will be able to ignore ability-boosting magic items in favor of more interesting ones.

Anyways, I think the fighter's lack of versatility is made up for by the action surge and the ability to burst 16 attacks in two rounds (and you can move and spread those attacks out anywhere along your movement, which makes even the wizard's AOE spells look lackluster). Smart players will be able to be awesome in any combat encounter. Fighters with access to use-activated magic items will be able to use those items in combat with action surge and won't lose tempo from their full attacks.

[akaddk]

This. Cleric gets 5, Fighter gets 7, Rogue gets 6, and Wizard gets 5. All of the interesting fighter abilities are going to come from the feats they take, similar to 3rd edition. Even when feats aren't used, a fighter is going to have awesome stats, and if he gets to pick and choose magic items he will be able to ignore ability-boosting magic items in favor of more interesting ones.

Anyways, I think the fighter's lack of versatility is made up for by the action surge and the ability to burst 16 attacks in two rounds (and you can move and spread those attacks out anywhere along your movement, which makes even the wizard's AOE spells look lackluster). Smart players will be able to be awesome in any combat encounter. Fighters with access to use-activated magic items will be able to use those items in combat with action surge and won't lose tempo from their full attacks.

I think this may have just changed my mind back to liking the fighter. Feats are huge in 5e and even having just one more feat than a rogue is a big deal that will allow you to customise your fighter more than any other class. A (variant) human fighter will be especially unique and powerful from 1st-level onwards, and the human is also criticised as being "boring".

[Sartharina]

Most feats might also be weapon- and attack-focused, so fighters have a larger pool of feats they can be effective with. And, because of the way D&D Next has horizontal progression (And no feat chains or clusters! Except maybe those armor ones. I don't like the looks of those.), each one expands the fighter's capabilities as well.

[Tholomyes]

This. Cleric gets 5, Fighter gets 7, Rogue gets 6, and Wizard gets 5. All of the interesting fighter abilities are going to come from the feats they take, similar to 3rd edition. Even when feats aren't used, a fighter is going to have awesome stats, and if he gets to pick and choose magic items he will be able to ignore ability-boosting magic items in favor of more interesting ones.

The problem I have with this is that Fighters get 7 feats over their career, sure, but they only get their first one at 4th level, like everyone else. Over the course of the campaign, they really don't seem to have much more than the rest of the classes. For the first 5 levels, they're exactly on-par with everyone else, in terms of feats. And once you enter the late game, you've already picked up the feats you really want (at least, until they release a book with new feat options), so you may be two feats ahead, but those feats are worth less.

In 3.5e, as a comparison, the fighter starts off with a Feat at first level, and then one at every even level. Normal progression is one at first, then one at third and every three levels after. So fighters start off with twice the feats, and gain more at more than twice the rate, and even then they were still considered incredibly uninteresting. Now, feats in 5e are more powerful and more interesting than 3e's feats, but fighters also have less of a complete domination on the feat game.

Simply put, they have a leg up on feats, but they need interesting things from their class, as well, to keep them from becoming superfluous.

[D-naras]

The problem I have with this is that Fighters get 7 feats over their career, sure, but they only get their first one at 4th level, like everyone else...

I wanted to address the bolded part, because I think that is one of the good things they did when they designed this edition. Not having to pick a feat before 4th level is an excellent way to create characters fast. If you start at first level, which the game assumes you are still a newbie adventurer (seriously, look at the amount of xp required to reach 3rd level. Levels 1-3 are the training levels and the game actually starts with the characters being 4th level), you can easily create a character by choosing race, class and background. No need to look over a large list of feats that you don't even know how they will measure up before you've started playing. If a get a total newbie to make a fighter in 3rd edition, he will either be frustrated over the huge size of the feat list or ask me to pick 2 or 3 feats for him. 5th will not have this problem. You even pick your subclass at 3rd level which is the first major mechanical choice when you create your character. I foresee most games starting at 4th level after the first few games for each group. That's when players will be experienced enough to know whether on not to pick a feat instead of an ability score increase and it's right after the Fantasy Vietnam stage of the game.

[Morty]

Fighters in the Basic Set are indeed dreadfully dull, and I don't think they're going to get much better. The Battlemster sub-class looks like it'd be a pretty good fit for the Basit Set, if it also got the Champion's passives - and, of course, a maneuver list that doesn't look like it was cobbled together in five minutes. Feats are nice, but, like Tholomyes said, they're an even scarcer resource than they are in 3e. And the feats we saw in the playtest were nice, and of better quality than most 3e Player's Handbook feats - not a huge achievment, mind you - but not ground-breaking. Of course, with the combat system looking the way it does, there's only so much you can really do.

I'm going to be quite honest and say that I do not understand the thought process behind the Champion-variant Fighter at all. I do understand that not all people want to tangle with a list of abilities comparable to that of a ToB martial adept. But during the development of D&D Next, everything beyond "I hit it again" was deemed complex. Simplicity is a fine goal, but proper simplicity takes finesse and subtlety to achieve. D&D Next 'martial' classes, and non-magical combat in general, were treated with all the finesse and subtlety of an aspirant lumberjack. What's the point of rolling the same thing over and over again? You might as well do what some systems do, and resolve the combat in a single roll. Even the Slayer variant of the 4e Fighter is still miles ahead of the 5e basic Fighter, and it was specifically designed for simplicity.

Speaking of the Slayer, I think that might be the way to go when designing simple variants that are still more or less comparable to the more complex ones. Design a system of maneuvers for warrior classes, then have the Fighter sub-class in the basic rules only use a handful of passive, powerful stances they can shift between, and some utilities here and there. This way you don't need to strip down the whole class for the sake of the simple option, but people who want it can still play someone who relies on basic attacks. Although, like I said, it would also help a lot if the combat system had some depth to it and rudimentary options didn't require spending character-building resources on them.

[Millennium]

I offer what I do.

Fighters win. Period.
That sounds kind of like what Lamentations of the Flame Princess did: everyone gets a +1 bonus to attack rolls at first level, and Fighters also get +1/level... and that's it. No other class gets a scaling bonus to attack rolls (LotFP hews closer to OD&D than AD&D, so there are no paladins or rangers or any of the other "fighter-like" classes).

I can't say I've playtested it for myself yet. I'm a little wary, but I do find the concept intriguing. You're saying that it works well?

[obryn]

Ok then lets see what we got

Cleric- 9th Level Casting, Channel Divinity 3/Short Rest, Destroy Undead, Divine Intervention,

Fighter- 1 Fighting Style, 4 Attacks, the Ability to Reroll Saves 3/day, 2 Action Surges/Short Rest.

Rogue- Expertise, Thieves Cant (pfft I mean how is this a class feature?), Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge (I like this), Cunning Action, Evasion, Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive, and Stroke of Luck (Wow thats alot of different ablilities)

Wizard- 9th Level Casting, Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell.
That's a bundle of false equivalences. You can't put "spellcasting" on the same level as "fighting style" in any kind of realistic fashion.

[Tehnar]

I wanted to address the bolded part, because I think that is one of the good things they did when they designed this edition. Not having to pick a feat before 4th level is an excellent way to create characters fast. If you start at first level, which the game assumes you are still a newbie adventurer (seriously, look at the amount of xp required to reach 3rd level. Levels 1-3 are the training levels and the game actually starts with the characters being 4th level), you can easily create a character by choosing race, class and background. No need to look over a large list of feats that you don't even know how they will measure up before you've started playing. If a get a total newbie to make a fighter in 3rd edition, he will either be frustrated over the huge size of the feat list or ask me to pick 2 or 3 feats for him. 5th will not have this problem. You even pick your subclass at 3rd level which is the first major mechanical choice when you create your character. I foresee most games starting at 4th level after the first few games for each group. That's when players will be experienced enough to know whether on not to pick a feat instead of an ability score increase and it's right after the Fantasy Vietnam stage of the game.

I don't really understand this mentality..just how fast do you need to be able to create characters? Especially low level (1st) characters. Even if you have to pick a feat or three? A GM will probably put in hours of work to prepare a single session, while you are averse to something that takes 10 minutes top?

Total newbies have to be guided through every step of the character creation process anyway, so helping him pick a feat is not any different then picking a spell or a class?.

[obryn]

I don't really understand this mentality..just how fast do you need to be able to create characters? Especially low level (1st) characters. Even if you have to pick a feat or three? A GM will probably put in hours of work to prepare a single session, while you are averse to something that takes 10 minutes top?

Total newbies have to be guided through every step of the character creation process anyway, so helping him pick a feat is not any different then picking a spell or a class?.
Well, for starters, if you want a feat at 1st, there's always "alt" humans.

Personally, I think feats are pretty terrible in both 3e and 4e. I don't love their inclusion in 5e, but the fact that you at least aren't slammed with a "pick 1 of these 200 things" right out the gate is very nice.

There's something to be said for keeping complexity back from 1st level. In this case, you get to it soon enough, anyway.

[Millennium]

I don't really understand this mentality..just how fast do you need to be able to create characters? Especially low level (1st) characters. Even if you have to pick a feat or three? A GM will probably put in hours of work to prepare a single session, while you are averse to something that takes 10 minutes top?
10 minutes tops? How many characters have you created? I just started a new campaign where only a couple of players are new to role-playing, but most are new to Pathfinder. Every other aspect of character creation was quick, but picking feats took them hours: easily 10 times as long as everything else combined, and maybe more. Several of them actually threw the ball back into my court after a few hours, asking me to pick feats for them. I like feats a lot, but the overhead they impose at character creation is a serious problem.

I'd never considered pushing them back past first level (probably because the extra feat slot is so important to humans), but it seems like an elegant enough solution to me. I don't think it would work for 3.whatever, where feats are assumed to be relatively small, but in a system where they're a bigger deal (like 5e) it sounds great.

[Tehnar]

10 minutes tops? How many characters have you created? I just started a new campaign where only a couple of players are new to role-playing, but most are new to Pathfinder. Every other aspect of character creation was quick, but picking feats took them hours: easily 10 times as long as everything else combined, and maybe more. Several of them actually threw the ball back into my court after a few hours, asking me to pick feats for them. I like feats a lot, but the overhead they impose at character creation is a serious problem.

I'd never considered pushing them back past first level (probably because the extra feat slot is so important to humans), but it seems like an elegant enough solution to me. I don't think it would work for 3.whatever, where feats are assumed to be relatively small, but in a system where they're a bigger deal (like 5e) it sounds great.

I don't keep track, but easily hundreds of characters. Most of those were NPC's, but a fair bit were characters I wanted to play.

If you throw at newbie players the entire Pathfinder SRD laundry list of feats of course there is going to be some confusion. Give them a choice of 20 feats, and suddenly made the choice a lot easier. Also, as a experienced player you can easily guide players to what feats are good for their concept. Looking at PHB alone (any edition) there are like 5 feats per archetype to choose from. So really I don't think the feat picking part of character creation should take that long. As they gain system mastery, they will be looking up feats for themselves.

[Person_Man]

The thing is, if ALL the fighter maneuvers were available freely to all fighters then that doesn't make the fighter any less capable of walking up to people and whacking them.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was simply describing the philosophy behind the 5E Fighter design.

Along the lines of what you were describing, here's a very simple fix that keeps the Fighter simple but makes him infinitely more useful:

1) Opportunity Attack: If you have the Extra Attack class Feature, you may make more then one attack. For example, a 20th level Fighter makes 4 Attacks when he uses a Reaction to make an Opportunity Attack. (This is also how it worked in 2E).

2) Combat Maneuver: In place of any Attack action (including Opportunity Attacks), you may make a Combat Maneuver. Make a Strength (Athletics) check against any enemy within your reach. The enemy opposes this check with a Strength (Athletics) check or a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (their choice). If you succeed, choose one of the following status effects, which immediately effects your target: Grappled, Prone, Pushed, Disarmed, Stunned for 1 round, Immobilized for 1 round, etc. Enemies that are more then one size larger then you have Advantage on this Contest. (This is similar to what they can currently do with Grapple or Shove, but with a longer list of more useful effects). Fighters get Proficiency and a bonus in Strength (Athletics) by default.

And that's it. No need for elaborate lists or ToB like Strikes. People who want to just attack and deal damage every turn can do so without thinking about it. People who want to do other stuff can.

[Fwiffo86]

I offer what I do.

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

Solves the multi-class issue, a MC fighter will never be as good at fighting as full fighter. Gives fighters something no other class can have. Makes fighters EXTREMELY dangerous when they get in your face. (hard to cast when your on your back).

Everyone else has something else. Pallys have auras and spells, Rangers have pets and spells, etc. They are not fighters. They lose in these contests.

Fighter wins in the following:
Disarm
Trip
Shield Bash (see bullrush or trip)
Bull rushing
Feint

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.


Perhaps I was a little vague when putting this up. Ok.... so clarifications...

Equal to +/- 1 or 2 level fighters essentially get saves/resistance to being Disarmed and the like when they try to do it to each other.

Creatures/monsters/villains (non-classed) of equal or greater strength get the same resistance.

Non-fighter classes of higher level get resistances as well, using the following guidelines.

Warrior types +level difference to resist
Rogue types +1/3 level difference to resist
Cleric types +1/3 level difference to resist
Wizard types +1/4 level difference to resist

Thus it would be exceptionally unlikely that a 1st level fighter disarm a 20th level barbarian, and hard for a 1st level fighter to disarm a 20th level wizard. It is obviously harder to disarm warrior types, but they are still NOT fighters. This is the most important part. Fighters fight. That's all they get, and they should be the end all be all supreme fighters. They don't get rage, or spells, or animal companions, etc. All they have is their ability to master fighting.

This doesn't require pages of abilities to make them useful and fun at every level. Just some common sense needs to be used when unusual situations arise.

[Millennium]

I don't keep track, but easily hundreds of characters. Most of those were NPC's, but a fair bit were characters I wanted to play.
That's what I thought you'd say. Either that, or that you'd never actually created any characters yourself, but the former was much more likely.

When I set up my home wireless network, it was back in the days of WEP. I put in the hex encoding of my 128-bit key so many times that I memorized it. I later upgraded to better security methods, but I kept that hex encoding as my passphrase, because I'd already memorized a 26-character string of apparently random gobbledygook that no one was ever going to guess. Everyone else on the network complains, though.

Does this mean that memorizing 26-character strings is easy? No; it means that I put in an inordinate amount of time on something, such that it only seems second-nature to me. I posit that the same has happened with you and feat choices: you've done it so many times that, having probably memorized half the core feat list by now, it seems second-nature to you. You've lost sight of how difficult it really is, just like me with my favorite passphrase.

As they gain system mastery, they will be looking up feats for themselves.
Any core part of a newbie's initial impressions of the game that requires "system mastery" to do in a reasonable amount of time is a fundamental flaw in the system.

[Morty]

I do love it when my lengthy post ends up on the bottom of a page. Oh well.

Anyway, I think there is some merit to making 1st and 2nd level into dirt-simple 'training wheels' for new players. People who want to start off with better customization can start at 3rd level. I think plenty of people do it already, in all editions.

I can also get behind the feeling of feat bloat. I made a couple of characters using the 4e character builder lately. The edition's certainly growing on me, but boy howdy are the feats a handful to pick through. I was actually kind of grateful for the number-increasing feat taxes, because I could pick those and call it a day. Although of course my longsword-wielding rogue needed Versatile Duelist. That, by the way, is a character concept D&D has otherwise never supported, and I have this sinking feeling 5e will likewise ignore it.

[obryn]

I can also get behind the feeling of feat bloat. I made a couple of characters using the 4e character builder lately. The edition's certainly growing on me, but boy howdy are the feats a handful to pick through.
If I were making a 4.5 revision, feats would be the first thing to go. Or at least to cut down on. About 70% of them are actual garbage.

[Callin]

That's a bundle of false equivalences. You can't put "spellcasting" on the same level as "fighting style" in any kind of realistic fashion.

Why not? The Fighter gets 4 Attacks in a round and can go all day every day. The Wizard gets 22 Spell Levels every day. The Fighter, twice a Short Rest, can burst that with an extra action. The Wizard can get back a total of 10 Spell Levels once per day.

So basically the Fighter Fights and the Wizard Wizzes. At the basic of basics. But wait Callin, what about everything you can do with spells that a Fighter cant do with Swinging a sword? Well thats simple. Its not supposed to or else why play a Wizard when a Fighter gets more HP and Heavy Armor. The Fighter can still replicate small effects while swinging a sword. Oh I need fire damage, sets Sword in Forge for a round and let it get hot. Need to drop a house on someone, cut the main support beam. The Fighter just needs to think outside the box to get the most out of his abilities. The Wizard gets it easy mode.

Fighting Styles are the same as Wizard Schools. There are going to be better ones and Boring ones. Consider Champion like Evocation Spec Wizards. You deal damage, its what you do. Its not bad per say but it does not have the flair that Illusion has, or Maneuvers for a Fighter.

So yes, yes I can compare Spells to Swinging a Sword. Its my opinion but I see why you say its a "false equivalences". Its like comparing Apples to Oranges. Well I am, and I find both to be tasteful.

I meah hell why would anyone want to play in a game where everyone can do everything? WHY even get together and try to over come the encounters that the DM sets you up against when you could just do it alone? It dont make sense. Why have a party?

[PinkysBrain]

I don't think the problem with the fighter is that he's boring, some people want boring. It's that he's just not very good. The basic fighter should be better at doing (multi-target) damage and party protection.

[Morty]

If I were making a 4.5 revision, feats would be the first thing to go. Or at least to cut down on. About 70% of them are actual garbage.

Yes, and the ones that aren't tend to be obligatory because of the game's math. The feats I'd call worthwhile is stuff like Versatile Duelist, which, like I mentioned in my edit, opens up a whole new archetype the rogue can portray, one that D&D has otherwise spent a great deal of effort ignoring. Which is nice. Or that feat the name of which I forget that lets the rogue shift more anytime she does so. Feats are fine, in theory, as a relatively class-neutral means of 'rounding' characters. They're just really prone to bloat and feat tax.

[obryn]

Why not? The Fighter gets 4 Attacks in a round and can go all day every day. The Wizard gets 22 Spell Levels every day. The Fighter, twice a Short Rest, can burst that with an extra action. The Wizard can get back a total of 10 Spell Levels once per day.

So basically the Fighter Fights and the Wizard Wizzes. At the basic of basics. But wait Callin, what about everything you can do with spells that a Fighter cant do with Swinging a sword? Well thats simple. Its not supposed to or else why play a Wizard when a Fighter gets more HP and Heavy Armor. The Fighter can still replicate small effects while swinging a sword. Oh I need fire damage, sets Sword in Forge for a round and let it get hot. Need to drop a house on someone, cut the main support beam. The Fighter just needs to think outside the box to get the most out of his abilities. The Wizard gets it easy mode.

Fighting Styles are the same as Wizard Schools. There are going to be better ones and Boring ones. Consider Champion like Evocation Spec Wizards. You deal damage, its what you do. Its not bad per say but it does not have the flair that Illusion has, or Maneuvers for a Fighter.

So yes, yes I can compare Spells to Swinging a Sword. Its my opinion but I see why you say its a "false equivalences". Its like comparing Apples to Oranges. Well I am, and I find both to be tasteful.

I meah hell why would anyone want to play in a game where everyone can do everything? WHY even get together and try to over come the encounters that the DM sets you up against when you could just do it alone? It dont make sense. Why have a party?
I really wish you were trolling here, but I don't think you are. You're trotting out basically every cliche in the book, here, from the "ALL DAY!" exhortations to the "outside the box" chestnut.

Nobody wants a game where everyone can do everything. I'm saying the current situation - where there's there's one or two classes out of the lot which can do everything - is unacceptable.

[Dienekes]

Why not? The Fighter gets 4 Attacks in a round and can go all day every day. The Wizard gets 22 Spell Levels every day. The Fighter, twice a Short Rest, can burst that with an extra action. The Wizard can get back a total of 10 Spell Levels once per day.

So basically the Fighter Fights and the Wizard Wizzes. At the basic of basics. But wait Callin, what about everything you can do with spells that a Fighter cant do with Swinging a sword? Well thats simple. Its not supposed to or else why play a Wizard when a Fighter gets more HP and Heavy Armor. The Fighter can still replicate small effects while swinging a sword. Oh I need fire damage, sets Sword in Forge for a round and let it get hot. Need to drop a house on someone, cut the main support beam. The Fighter just needs to think outside the box to get the most out of his abilities. The Wizard gets it easy mode.

Fighting Styles are the same as Wizard Schools. There are going to be better ones and Boring ones. Consider Champion like Evocation Spec Wizards. You deal damage, its what you do. Its not bad per say but it does not have the flair that Illusion has, or Maneuvers for a Fighter.

So yes, yes I can compare Spells to Swinging a Sword. Its my opinion but I see why you say its a "false equivalences". Its like comparing Apples to Oranges. Well I am, and I find both to be tasteful.

I meah hell why would anyone want to play in a game where everyone can do everything? WHY even get together and try to over come the encounters that the DM sets you up against when you could just do it alone? It dont make sense. Why have a party?

Here's the difference. Spells do things, often powerful interesting things. Spellcasting is such a vast class feature that covers so many differing scenarios putting it up against the ability to swing a sword once or twice more per turn is making them both seem equal when if 3e and 3.5 are any indicator, they are not.

This is especially problematic when we look at the cantrips that we have a few threads down shown are, admittedly lesser than a basic attack, but still pretty even. That is on top all these powerful unique spells that they have.

I'll be honest, I look at the Fighter and I don't see someone who knows how to use a sword. I see a block of stats. Nothing about it looks elegant, dynamic, or interesting. Does anybody look at what the Fighter is given and thinks it really captures the imagination of the deadly dance of combat? Can you model any of your favorite warriors from history or fiction with it? Cause I don't see it. But if you do, I'll shut up about it.

[Morty]

I'll be honest, I look at the Fighter and I don't see someone who knows how to use a sword. I see a block of stats. Nothing about it looks elegant, dynamic, or interesting. Does anybody look at what the Fighter is given and thinks it really captures the imagination of the deadly dance of combat? Can you model any of your favorite warriors from history or fiction with it? Cause I don't see it. But if you do, I'll shut up about it.

Yeah, this. It's not even about pure power in comparison to other classes, it's just that the Champion Fighter is so staggeringly inept at anything resembling actual combat, much less dramatic, heroic martial arts. Standing in place or running around and swinging isn't anything any real warrior has ever done, and don't get me started on more larger-than-life ones.

[Sartharina]

... I actually almost liked 4e's feats, even though most were 'garbage'. In fact, I had a bigger issue with the ones that weren't, Sort of, in that they felt mandatory to proceed. Maybe it's because I only have books instead of a character builder, and reference Handbooks assembled by others, but I enjoyed "Six feats per tier, minimal need to worry about prerequisites, grab things that look interesting and fit your character concept". I could grab the feats I needed/wanted in almost any order within a tier. In fact, the adventuring tiers were possibly the best thing about 4e. Maybe it's because I don't have any system mastery of 4e yet. I hated feats in 3e, though, because every 3rd level (6th at best) was its own adventuring tier. The prerequisites, lack of class features and in-class customization, feat chains, feat trees, and other stuff made feat selection distinctly Not Fun.

Then again... the 'adventuring tiers' in 3e were much more compressed than 4e (I blame full casters for this), giving insufficient room for character development.

On that note... I think D&D Next sort of went the wrong way on casting and spell levels. I'd have preferred fewer spell levels, but more spell slots. Make levels 1-10 be for spell levels 1-3, levels 11-20 give 4-6, and 21-30 give 7-9.

... maybe I should start working on my own mashup system to show how I think a good hybrid of 3e and 4e could have looked. (Ironically, it would probably use 4e-style mundane characters, and 3e-style casters, but extended.)

[Callin]

I really wish you were trolling here, but I don't think you are. You're trotting out basically every cliche in the book, here, from the "ALL DAY!" exhortations to the "outside the box" chestnut.

Nobody wants a game where everyone can do everything. I'm saying the current situation - where there's there's one or two classes out of the lot which can do everything - is unacceptable.

(All of this is spoken in a nice calm voice. Not trying to be mean here or anything like that. Specially not calling out Obryn or anyone else even though he is quoted)

Not trolling and I honestly take a small bit of offense to that. Not much but a small minute amount lol. Im done with the argument because my views and facts from my table just wont sway someone dead set on being against it. See previous posts for my argument. At my table its Fighter up front, Wizard in the back. Fighter keeps people from getting to Wizard. Wizard controls the Battlefield. Cleric Jack of All Trades the holes in the combat. Rogues hit where needed to drop things. We play a simple game. I try to bring more than Hack and Slash to my games but its lost on most of the group. Social Encounters are handled by a few people who are interested in that, and the group lets the best person for the Job do it. Spells are not used in those situations 8 out of 10 times. So I guess we play DnD the way Wizards of the Coast sees people playing DnD. Its not wrong

Even other games I play in with other people. No connection to any OTHER game I play in, its pretty much the same way. So yea in my experience the Wizard up on a pedestal is a joke. Its no fun if one person Trivializes the rest of a Party. I should know because I have done it accidentally once or twice with 3.5, and I wasnt even playing a Spell Caster. I dont see it happening much in 5th. HELL the PHB isnt even out yet and this is going on. We dont even have a full set of rules or full classes or EVEN all of the damn classes. So I really wonder why these conversations are even being started? Yes T0 Optimization is fun. I like it, hell I love it. I love to make characters be all that they can be. But that dont get brought to the table because its not fun for the group.

[Kaervaslol]

My group doesn't face this problem.

I play mage when I want fiddly bits, I play fighter when I want to smash.

Fighters are awesome and they get access to the best equipment both mundane and magical.

[Dienekes]

My group doesn't face this problem.

I play mage when I want fiddly bits, I play fighter when I want to smash.

Fighters are awesome and they get access to the best equipment both mundane and magical.

It's weird for me, because I always assumed that if you want to just smash things, that was what the Barbarian was for. Fighters, by contrast, were trained swordsman who studied the art of combat. I don't think it is asking too much to want to play a character that at least feels like he knows more about swordsmanship than I do. I'm a pretty crappy swordsman.

[Sartharina]

Nah. Barbarians are for people who want to be more like Rambo. They have a degree of finesse and cunning to their smashing.

[Dienekes]

Nah. Barbarians are for people who want to be more like Rambo. They have a degree of finesse and cunning to their smashing.

Their signature ability literally makes them unable to think about anything involving intelligence or cunning, just smashing.

[Morty]

Looking at the Warlock preview in the other thread, they seem to have managed a simple spellcaster without lengthy spell list. Why can't they do the same thing for warriors, only the other way around?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Looking at the Warlock preview in the other thread, they seem to have managed a simple spellcaster without lengthy spell list. Why can't they do the same thing for warriors, only the other way around?

AFAICT the Warlock uses the same spells the Wizard does, just in a different way. (Which is a recipe for disaster as a precedent of class design if I ever saw one.) And I don't think anyone's suggesting we literally give the Fighter wizard spells with a different casting mechanic and some slight refluffing.

[Morty]

What I mean is, I don't think it's impossible to create a proper martial resource mechanic, then make a class who uses it in a limited manner that's easy to wrap your head around for players who just want to smash things or are new. Well, unless they bungled the warlock too. But I'm assuming for a moment they didn't.

[1337 b4k4]

I'm going to be quite honest and say that I do not understand the thought process behind the Champion-variant Fighter at all. I do understand that not all people want to tangle with a list of abilities comparable to that of a ToB martial adept. But during the development of D&D Next, everything beyond "I hit it again" was deemed complex. Simplicity is a fine goal, but proper simplicity takes finesse and subtlety to achieve.

I do understand it because I've played with the players that want it. There are plenty of players out there for whom D&D is their social gathering and place to unwind. Where any problem that can't be dealt with by smacking something with a stick until it stops moving is either too much work because they want to veg, or too much work because they're really not interested in playing the game itself, just with hanging out (for them, the game could be Go Fish for all they care).

As an example, I had one of these players at my table, and despite that, they chose the wizard class (because FIRE!). We were playing a BECMI clone at level 1 or 2 so to be clear, their options were "hit it with a stick" or "cast light" or "cast magic missile" and then once they had cast, their options were "hit it with a stick". On more than one occasion, this player's turn came around and they sat and stared at their character sheet, unsure of what they should do. It wasn't that this player was slow or dumb, but that they really just weren't interested in making those choices or really doing anything than hitting things with sticks. And as a DM, I'd be more than happy with letting them do that. The problem is, when you have and play a class with those options, everyone else wants you to use those options (the whole team synergy thing) and wants to tell you how to use those options if you don't. That was absolutely frustrating for my player because they felt like they "weren't playing the game right".

I had another player (in 4e no less) for whom D&D was less the game they wanted to play, and more "this is a 4 hours a week I get to spend with adults who speak normal human" (they being the stay at home parent in this case, spending all day every day with multiple children under age 5). They just wanted to hit things with sticks as well, and again, combat rolls around and they look at their character sheet blankly. And again, because everyone else in the group expects them to be using all their cool powers, everyone has suggestions. Let me tell you, nothing ruins your enjoyment of a game faster than 7 other people all telling you what you should do all the time (or in certain cases, passive-aggresively suggesting you aren't really interested in playing the game since you don't choose your moves carefully). Again, it's not that they were dumb or slow on the uptake, but that the tactical / maneuver choice part of the game didn't interest them. These players both would (and are) better served by having a simple hit things with sticks character, and a DM willing to indulge them with "rule of cool" when they get creative. In fact, one of those players is thriving much more in a Dungeon World game since DW is much less about the maneuvers. But for those players that don't have the option of a different system, having a character that fits their style of play (and doesn't impose an expectations from others) is definitely a good thing. It's just a shame that it's only limited to fighters, as I would love to see a super simple caster too (although, admittedly how simple can you make a caster before they start looking like a fighter that hits things with a spell rather than a stick)

Edit
----------
All of that said, as I mentioned elsewhere, I am very much on board with them producing a fighter class that relies on mainly passive "stances" to accomplish different things. For most of these players, I don't think they would have had an issue with being told before a combat (or even before the session) "hey X, you should put your character into stance Q for this, because we're going to need your Z". The problem really came down to the round to round thing and with everyone expecting and pressuring (even if they weren't intending to, it feels that way) the player into doing things with all their characters bobs and widgets all the time.

End Edit
-------------


I don't really understand this mentality..just how fast do you need to be able to create characters? Especially low level (1st) characters. Even if you have to pick a feat or three? A GM will probably put in hours of work to prepare a single session, while you are averse to something that takes 10 minutes top?

Total newbies have to be guided through every step of the character creation process anyway, so helping him pick a feat is not any different then picking a spell or a class?.

Here's the trick. For some (many?) players, building a character, picking powers, feats and abilities, especially in a system like 3.x or 4e where previous choices impact future choices, is not fun. It's not part of the game. It's the homework they have to do before they can get to play the game. And anything you can do to reduce that (just like anything you can do to reduce the DM burden) is a good thing (within reason). Imagine for a moment The Newbie. You pitch to them this awesome game where they can be anything they want, a spell slinging wizard, a dashing swordsman, a noble knight, a crafty thief. They'll go on adventures, slaying dragons for treasure and rescuing cities and towns from ravaging hordes of undead. They will climb from mere nobodies slaying giant rats to kings and queens in their own right, and maybe even count themselves among the gods. Sounds awesome right? And the newbie thinks so too. And then you hit them with the rule book. Here, you need to at least be passingly familiar with these 300 pages of stuff. And then the questions. What race do you want to be? How do you want to assign your ability scores? What class? What feats? What powers? What spells? And from what frame of reference does the Newbie have to make these choices? How should they know what the benefits and drawbacks to picking X class vs Y class in combination with P race or Q race and 4 of these feats vs 3 of those spells vs 5 of those abilities and skills?

And yes, with infinite design time and a small enough problem space, a game could be designed with enough perfect balance that it wouldn't matter. That your players could pick any of those choices and they would be equally as powerful, and have equally as much fun. But we don't (and realistically will never) have that game. We have D&D. And even in 4e, your choices mattered in that case. And frankly, if they didn't, it would be bad too. Imagine telling that same Newbie "oh just pick anything, it really doesn't matter". Yeah ... "it doesn't matter" doesn't strike me as the sort of thing to hook a newbie in. So with Next, they've tried to reduce the choices newbies have to make, and the things they need to be familiar with. Frankly, I don't think they went quite far enough, but I highly doubt in this day and age WotC could have gotten away with stats rolled in order and stat restrictions on classes. I strongly suspect that this is a large part of the impetus behind putting only pre-gens and no char-gen in the the starter set. So yes, choice reduction for new players and early character creation is a good thing. Not everyone finds the character creation mini game fun, but those people deserve to be able to make their own characters just as much as anyone else.

[Morty]

*snip the long quote*

Okay, yeah. I can definitely see that. Still, like you said, there are better ways of creating simple options for players who just don't like dealing with fiddly bits. WotC just went backwards about it, really. It's better to make the whole complex structure, and then introduce a variant which narrows it down and simplifies it, making all the choices for the player. It's what 4e Essentials seem to do.

[Tehnar]

Here's the trick. For some (many?) players, building a character, picking powers, feats and abilities, especially in a system like 3.x or 4e where previous choices impact future choices, is not fun. It's not part of the game. It's the homework they have to do before they can get to play the game. And anything you can do to reduce that (just like anything you can do to reduce the DM burden) is a good thing (within reason). Imagine for a moment The Newbie. You pitch to them this awesome game where they can be anything they want, a spell slinging wizard, a dashing swordsman, a noble knight, a crafty thief. They'll go on adventures, slaying dragons for treasure and rescuing cities and towns from ravaging hordes of undead. They will climb from mere nobodies slaying giant rats to kings and queens in their own right, and maybe even count themselves among the gods. Sounds awesome right? And the newbie thinks so too. And then you hit them with the rule book. Here, you need to at least be passingly familiar with these 300 pages of stuff. And then the questions. What race do you want to be? How do you want to assign your ability scores? What class? What feats? What powers? What spells? And from what frame of reference does the Newbie have to make these choices? How should they know what the benefits and drawbacks to picking X class vs Y class in combination with P race or Q race and 4 of these feats vs 3 of those spells vs 5 of those abilities and skills?

And yes, with infinite design time and a small enough problem space, a game could be designed with enough perfect balance that it wouldn't matter. That your players could pick any of those choices and they would be equally as powerful, and have equally as much fun. But we don't (and realistically will never) have that game. We have D&D. And even in 4e, your choices mattered in that case. And frankly, if they didn't, it would be bad too. Imagine telling that same Newbie "oh just pick anything, it really doesn't matter". Yeah ... "it doesn't matter" doesn't strike me as the sort of thing to hook a newbie in. So with Next, they've tried to reduce the choices newbies have to make, and the things they need to be familiar with. Frankly, I don't think they went quite far enough, but I highly doubt in this day and age WotC could have gotten away with stats rolled in order and stat restrictions on classes. I strongly suspect that this is a large part of the impetus behind putting only pre-gens and no char-gen in the the starter set. So yes, choice reduction for new players and early character creation is a good thing. Not everyone finds the character creation mini game fun, but those people deserve to be able to make their own characters just as much as anyone else.

Most people I know got into DnD through someone more experienced. The pitch is what you said, slaying dragons and rescuing princesses, with the occasional tavern brawl.

You don't hit them with the rulebook then. You invite them to a session, and ask them what they would like to play. Would they be the strong warrior with a big sword? The crafty rogue who hides in the shadows? The archer? The healer? The caster? After they made their choice, you suggest the class they use. This usually takes the longest. Then you help them assign ability scores. Then skills/background.

Then come the feats...and you suggest that they pick from a couple of feats that are right for their character concept. From the core book. And you describe what the feats basically do without going into the nitty gritty. This step takes like 5 minutes.

So unless the player has a lot of questions, this takes about 15 minutes to half an hour, dependent on the amount of questions the player has. My experience tells me that most questions actually come at the initial stages, and by the time to pick feats players are pretty much done and just want to play. You don't let the complete newbie to build a character by himself. Even a free form TTRPG, with little or no rules, needs a introduction for the newbie by the GM.

So why give up on feats, the explaining of which takes 5 minutes, to possibly attract a newbie coming into the books on his own?If doesn't want to continue playing later it wasn't because of those 5 minutes spent over the feat options. If he wants to continue playing later, then you hand him the PHB, and show him the parts that pertain to his character. Lack of feats won't attract the newbie, but it could certainly leave a more experienced player finding the system dull and boring.

For those players not interested in the character creation minigame as you put it...I doubt a system exists which can both support players that desire mechanically simple character creation and those that prefer more complex character creation.

[Kaervaslol]

It's weird for me, because I always assumed that if you want to just smash things, that was what the Barbarian was for. Fighters, by contrast, were trained swordsman who studied the art of combat. I don't think it is asking too much to want to play a character that at least feels like he knows more about swordsmanship than I do. I'm a pretty crappy swordsman.

Barbarian = fighter who wears loincloth in absence of better armour. According to the archetype of all barbarians, they are also incredibly cunning and street smart. They tend to fear magic.

BAM, with a little roleplaying your generic fighter is now a Barbarian. We don't need subclasses for everything.

And i'm with 1337 b4k4 in this one. I enjoy the game, not the game about the game. What other people see as a necessity I tend to see as a chore in regards of mechanical options.

[Sartharina]

One of my friends I was speaking to who also plays D&D and Pathfinder made me more aware of just how out-of-touch this board seems to be with how (Some, at least) people play D&D.

The quote was "Your DM's a **** if he doesn't let your STR 18 fighter bash an enemy across the room with a shield" - even though there are no mechanics for actually doing so in the game.

And looking at 4e, I can see why his group never got it: Why are you restricting people to specific powers they're able to use? In Pathfinder/D&D/D&D 5e, an Attack can be anything, with a basic resolution mechanic. D&D Next makes this even easier with Proficiency, instead of trying to bring in millions of subsystems like skills, feats, etc.

[Dienekes]

Barbarian = fighter who wears loincloth in absence of better armour. According to the archetype of all barbarians, they are also incredibly cunning and street smart. They tend to fear magic.

BAM, with a little roleplaying your generic fighter is now a Barbarian. We don't need subclasses for everything.

And i'm with 1337 b4k4 in this one. I enjoy the game, not the game about the game. What other people see as a necessity I tend to see as a chore in regards of mechanical options.

Oh, if I had my way there would be only 5 or so classes that you build up to do what you want. It's only, what I want is a competent swordsman that can actually handle like a swordsman. I don't see that as some outlandish request. Can you imagine playing a mage where all you could do was magic missile every round? Because thats what a fighter plays like, and no actual warrior ever felt like.

As to the barbarian itself, despite any claims to the contrary, they're the class that gets stupid to do things and at one point had an ability that specifically called them out as being illiterate bumpkins. I have never gotten a vibe that they were supposed to be anything but raving madmen with axes.

[Demonic Spoon]

As to the barbarian itself, despite any claims to the contrary, they're the class that gets stupid to do things and at one point had an ability that specifically called them out as being illiterate bumpkins. I have never gotten a vibe that they were supposed to be anything but raving madmen with axes.

I assume you're referring to 3.5e. In that same edition they had more and better access to skills than the fighter, and had an easy mechanism (spend 1 SP in speak language) to get rid of illiteracy - and that wasn't supposed to imply that they were dumb. The lore behind barbarians, though, was that they came from a tribal background which probably didn't have formal education systems.

I'm fine with the basic 'champion' fighter being simple to play. As people have mentioned, there are definitely quite a few people out there who want to play a relatively simple hit-things class. I hope that there is also the ability to use feats or other subclasses to add the tactical depth and versatility that many of us would enjoy more, though.

[Sartharina]

As to the barbarian itself, despite any claims to the contrary, they're the class that gets stupid to do things and at one point had an ability that specifically called them out as being illiterate bumpkins. I have never gotten a vibe that they were supposed to be anything but raving madmen with axes.

They're the class that has the (Limited until high levels) ability to go stupidly badass in combat, and while illiterate, are not intelligent. They also had as many Skills as the 3.0 Ranger, Monk, and Bard (Though two of those got more skill points in the upgrade), instead of the "Big Dumb Fighters" like Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, and Sorcerer. They also have strong self-sufficiency - in 3.0, they had Heal as a class skill (Before 3.X decided to be a **** and remove that skill from every class that didn't render it obsolete with magic. What the hell, WotC?)

They don't go "Stupid" - they go Focused - and they can enter and exit that state of focus as they need. Furthermore, that focus reinforced their minds. It's a tool to be used strategically, to drop the hammer when they've set up the right tactics to win, or to turn the tide of battle back into their favor.

They aren't "Raving Madmen" - they can become Brutally Effective Killing Machines when the situation demands it.

[PinkysBrain]

The quote was "Your DM's a **** if he doesn't let your STR 18 fighter bash an enemy across the room with a shield" - even though there are no mechanics for actually doing so in the game.
Well there's bullrush, but that's not going to be enough.

My main problem with this kind of playing style is you never know what you can do ... sure you can bash someone across the room. Then you try to bash someone the same distance across the side of a cliff and the DM says no all of a sudden.

Trying to make up on the fly check DCs for this kind of thing in 5e is even worse ... because now you aren't simply letting them do it period, but you are pretending it's part of the game mechanics proper. Creating an even greater expectation that that DC is something they can rely on in the future for similar foes.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Okay, yeah. I can definitely see that. Still, like you said, there are better ways of creating simple options for players who just don't like dealing with fiddly bits. WotC just went backwards about it, really. It's better to make the whole complex structure, and then introduce a variant which narrows it down and simplifies it, making all the choices for the player. It's what 4e Essentials seem to do.

What you don't do, is make most of the system really simple and lightweight, then add a few valves here and there through which new complexity can be introduced.

[Sartharina]

What you don't do, is make most of the system really simple and lightweight, then add a few valves here and there through which new complexity can be introduced.Why not? It prevents holes being punched into the main system when you start small and expand, instead of try to start big and contract.

[Jon D]

I think a lot of people are mistaking boring for uncomplicated. Fighters do one thing very well, they ruin the other guy's day. Either through controling the fight by disarming or knocking their opponents down, or flat out killing them. A good fighter, IMO, is one that carries a variety of killing tools and uses the best on to fit the situation.

I won't argue that the Fighter hasn't been very good at his job at times, bjt it looks like they've got it right. My only gripe is discounting backgrounds, they are as usual shortchanged in the skills department.

[PinkysBrain]

Why not? It prevents holes being punched into the main system when you start small and expand
You won't need to punch any hole if you just create a new stack of house rules each session, it will be full of holes due to the design process.

[Sartharina]

Well there's bullrush, but that's not going to be enough.

My main problem with this kind of playing style is you never know what you can do ... sure you can bash someone across the room. Then you try to bash someone the same distance across the side of a cliff and the DM says no all of a sudden.

Trying to make up on the fly check DCs for this kind of thing in 5e is even worse ... because now you aren't simply letting them do it period, but you are pretending it's part of the game mechanics proper. Creating an even greater expectation that that DC you just decided on the fly is something they can rely on in the future for similar foes.It works when you're not living in an Ivory Tower of "I can't do what the rules don't say"

Combat and ability checks are a framework more than they are a system. 4e's Skill challenges were also a problem of people treating a framework like a system.

[PinkysBrain]

It works when you're not living in an Ivory Tower of "I can't do what the rules don't say"
It works when you don't mind if the DM lets everything depend on what he thinks works for the narrative (ie. I don't want that enemy thrown off the cliff so the DC is suddenly going to be much higher). But this is problematic when you are playing with wizards who can achieve a lot of the same effects but with predictable results which don't depend on the DM's whims.

I don't think rules light games can't work ... I just think trying to make half the players play a rules light game and the other half a tactical simulation is not a good idea.

[Dienekes]

They're the class that has the (Limited until high levels) ability to go stupidly badass in combat, and while illiterate, are not intelligent. They also had as many Skills as the 3.0 Ranger, Monk, and Bard (Though two of those got more skill points in the upgrade), instead of the "Big Dumb Fighters" like Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, and Sorcerer. They also have strong self-sufficiency - in 3.0, they had Heal as a class skill (Before 3.X decided to be a **** and remove that skill from every class that didn't render it obsolete with magic. What the hell, WotC?)

They don't go "Stupid" - they go Focused - and they can enter and exit that state of focus as they need. Furthermore, that focus reinforced their minds. It's a tool to be used strategically, to drop the hammer when they've set up the right tactics to win, or to turn the tide of battle back into their favor.

They aren't "Raving Madmen" - they can become Brutally Effective Killing Machines when the situation demands it.

That'd be nice, if it was called Combat Focus. But it isn't. It's Rage. You get angry and then you aren't allowed to use your Intelligence or Wisdom for higher level thinking anymore. You get angry and stupid and strong. And then you get sleepy when it's over.

Intelligence itself is based off of an attribute which admittedly can be increased by anyone. Not that the barbarian actually has any particular reason to do so, and as to the skills. Sorry, I've met enough hunters to know they can be dumb as bricks and still know how to survive in the wild.

And even if I do accept that the barbarian was despite this supposed to be the intelligent fighter, it still was limited with the "I hit things and make them fall down" mentality that I am railing against in the first place. That's not how combat works, no fictional character I have ever seen fought like that and it's boring as hell.

[The Mormegil]

Simple doesn't need to be boring. Also, player aids can be used to improve how readable a situation is. Even non-gamers and people that don't want to think will feel great with a class that doesn't overload them (is simple) yet rewards intelligent choices and interesting play (is not boring). There are ways to give people that want simple something that is not just a pile of stats and uninteresting boredom.

By the way, another problem of the fighter is that it's not actually a good concept. Everybody fights. A class can't really be "the best" at fighting because fighting is the core of the system. I'm sorry, I know many will cry that "fighting is not the point of MY game" and that "you can run a game without fighting" and all that jazz but here's the thing: D&D's theme has fighting as a core aspect, D&D's rules provide fighting as the only dramatic conflict resolution, a huge portion of the playerbase likes to smack goblins, and all the reference material has boss fights as a climax. So no, you can't have the fighter be "the best at fighting" by a significant margin. That strategy also has always led to fighters that only fight, and that leaves them flipping through mangas in a corner in any other scene. Some of you may think this is contradictory, but it's really not: fights are central but aren't the entire experience, and you can't shut down fighting by just saying "the fighter is the best and everyone else just scrambles around" if you want to keep your theme intact, and dramatic boss fights a reality, but you also can't have a character completely about fighting if you want there to be some form of non-combat interaction.

Also, WotC has this thing that martial characters need to be completely deprived of magic, in a magic world, which makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, why would a fighter in D&D's standard world not learn about magic? I get it - he doesn't actually cast magic, martial characters are not spellcasters, ok, cool. But why would they not learn about magic? Why would a soldier not learn about artillery weapons? Also, why would they not use magic? They don't cast spells they still can use magic items. Why don't they get magic health kits as part of the Healing skill, or magic tools to forge magic swords, et cetera. And then again, why can't they interact with magic at all? Why shouldn't a barbarian be able to eat lightning while raging? It's cool. Why can't a half-orc rogue smell magic auras? It kinda fits, maybe a feat that requires the Search skill or something.
I don't get why you purposefully cut off some classes from magic of all things. This is about fantasy heroes - fantasy is basically defined by magic. There's bound to be crazy magical stuff going on in every campaign, why would a player need to sit out every time that kind of thing comes up? "Oh I'm a fighter I can't know jack about spells" is stupid. "Oh I'm a fighter I didn't study magic but here's the things I can do to interact with it" is much better.
Of course that requires you to forego the idea of having a world that is "just like ours but with wizards and dragons", which is frankly insane to begin with. If you have dragons you're bending laws of physics already, and the changes to the world would be far-reaching. Having fighters be able to shield themselves from firebreathing is just one of the possibilities, but if you have that, why not having them slash through magic barriers, or steal a spell effect with smart positioning, et cetera.

[1337 b4k4]

You don't hit them with the rulebook then. You invite them to a session, and ask them what they would like to play. Would they be the strong warrior with a big sword? The crafty rogue who hides in the shadows? The archer? The healer? The caster? After they made their choice, you suggest the class they use. This usually takes the longest. Then you help them assign ability scores. Then skills/background.

Then come the feats...and you suggest that they pick from a couple of feats that are right for their character concept. From the core book. And you describe what the feats basically do without going into the nitty gritty. This step takes like 5 minutes.

So unless the player has a lot of questions, this takes about 15 minutes to half an hour, dependent on the amount of questions the player has. My experience tells me that most questions actually come at the initial stages, and by the time to pick feats players are pretty much done and just want to play. You don't let the complete newbie to build a character by himself. Even a free form TTRPG, with little or no rules, needs a introduction for the newbie by the GM.

Addressing the bold items in order:

1) Here's the thing. That 15 minutes to a half an hour of 20 questions that you're playing with your newbie .. that's 15 minutes to a half an hour in which they are not actually doing what you said they're going to be doing. And even worse, it's their first 15 minutes to a half hour of experience with the game ever. Think about that. Imagine you get together for a 3 hour session. You've just taken 1/6 of the time your player was supposed to be slaying dragons and going on adventures playing "Guess Who" and "What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up". And this is for one player. God help you if you have a group of newbies.

2) Yes, as you put it "they're pretty much done and just want to play". In other words, you've bored your new player to tears and they either want to start punching dragons or they're leaving. This is not the way to introduce new people to the game. Your first experience with this game should not be being bored to death with rules.

3) The game absolutely needs to be able to support people who don't have a master GM. For one, not everyone has a master GM that they're friends with. For two, not every GM is a good GM. I'm sure almost everyone has or knows someone with a horror story of a GM that started them on the wrong foot. The answer to the question of "how do I go about playing this game" should never start with "find someone who already knows how to play".


So why give up on feats, the explaining of which takes 5 minutes, to possibly attract a newbie coming into the books on his own?

The best part is, they didn't give up on feats. They just pushed the decision off until later in the game. That's exactly what they should do. Experienced players can either start with Level 3 or 4 or simply know what they want when they get there, and new players get a chance to feel out the game and punch some dragons before being asked to start making decisions about what they want to be when they level up.



For those players not interested in the character creation minigame as you put it...I doubt a system exists which can both support players that desire mechanically simple character creation and those that prefer more complex character creation.

It's absolutely doable. And you could even do it with D&D. I've done this once, but it was a success and I strongly suspect I'll be doing it again in the future. When a new player shows up, don't even ask them for class / feats /abilities. Just have them start playing. When they want to do something, either ask them how good they are at it, or have them roll for the relevant stat and explain what that stat is for now. Then from that point on they roll against that stat. When they want to do something covered by a feat, thats when you give them the feat (of course, this relies on feats being more useful than "you can now walk AND chew bubble gum"). Their character gets built holistically and they're not confronted with 20 questions for their first encounter. Obviously this particular method requires having a relatively experienced DM (see my admonishment above) but even that's still better than the current way of doing things, and there's no reason this game couldn't be designed to enable new players without a DM to go through a similar process (imagine a starter set that comes with a Choose Your Own Adventure book that generates a character on the fly for you, BECMI had something like this, but IIRC you always ended up with a fighter). It's not the overall complexity that's the main issue, it's the amount of complexity required to be sifted through up front.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Why not? It prevents holes being punched into the main system when you start small and expand, instead of try to start big and contract.

Starting small and expanding is fine, but you need to start abstract and work your way down. WotC has instead made their system fairly concrete, with a few pieces designed to be taken off like feats and skill proficiencies. There's not much room to build without stepping on what's already there.


For example, let's say I want to dump vancian casting and use an Ars Magica-inspired interpretive magic system instead. Lots of people don't like vancian spellcasting so I think this is a pretty reasonable request. I pretty much have to dump all the spellcasting classes and write completely new ones from scratch; I *might* be able to reuse aspects of the half-casters like the Bard, but that's really it. And I have to dump all the feats related to spells and spellcasting and write *them* from scratch too. And all the magic items too, since they all use spells from the default vancian system.

What if I want to take the Feat system and replace it with a point-based talent system instead? I don't even know where to begin with that; Let you get 10 talent points instead of an attribute increase? Assign each class its own talent-point-per-level value?

[1337 b4k4]

Also, WotC has this thing that martial characters need to be completely deprived of magic, in a magic world, which makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, why would a fighter in D&D's standard world not learn about magic? I get it - he doesn't actually cast magic, martial characters are not spellcasters, ok, cool. But why would they not learn about magic? Why would a soldier not learn about artillery weapons? Also, why would they not use magic? They don't cast spells they still can use magic items. Why don't they get magic health kits as part of the Healing skill, or magic tools to forge magic swords, et cetera. And then again, why can't they interact with magic at all? Why shouldn't a barbarian be able to eat lightning while raging? It's cool. Why can't a half-orc rogue smell magic auras? It kinda fits, maybe a feat that requires the Search skill or something.

To be fair, this is definitely a WotC thing, not a D&D thing. In the pre-WotC editions of the game, not only did fighters get the best saves against magic, but they also were the ONLY class who could use the best and most powerful magic items. I largely think that this mentality is a combination of 3 very bad sets of ideas:

1) Ignoring magic restrictions in old D&D. WotC really took a lot of the chains of magic when they got a hold of D&D and are only just now beginning to reign it in.

2) Giving fighters magic items means they can be shut down too easy. There's this weird combination of DMs who hate fighters with magic items (and thus look for every excuse to take them away) and players who are perpetually afraid of such DMs. These two forces have combined into a super meme which exists to discourage giving fighters magic items because that's somehow just a cheap bandaid.

3) Fighters can't have magic, they just have to be able to slice mountains in half with their fists and leap tall buildings in a single bound. These people seem to want a magic fighter, they just don't want to admit that it's magic (and thus have it play by the same rules as the rest of the magic system. Frankly, I've never understood this idea. If you want you fighter to be magical then make them magical and stop pretending you aren't. Hercules didn't get to where he was by being just a super strong dude. He was half a god. If that isn't magic then what is?

This combination of things has led us to this strange world wherein we totally expect a "just like us, but maybe a touch stronger human fighter" to be equal and on par to elves slinging reality bending spells and expect them to have no help at all from gear and such. A world where we want to see Iron Man vs Thor, but "oh can we not have Iron Man in that silly metal suit with all his technology and stuff? The DM will just take it all away"

[Doug Lampert]

This combination of things has led us to this strange world wherein we totally expect a "just like us, but maybe a touch stronger human fighter" to be equal and on par to elves slinging reality bending spells and expect them to have no help at all from gear and such. A world where we want to see Iron Man vs Thor, but "oh can we not have Iron Man in that silly metal suit with all his technology and stuff? The DM will just take it all away"

I don't actually see this fear that the DM will take the magic items away as the reason not to count gear for mundanes.

The problem is that there are no mundane only items, there are many caster only items (especially wands, which are a great deal), the casters can make items to get them at a discount, and items can be purchased and sold.

It isn't that Iron Man has to not wear his power suit, it's that for the same fraction of his effort and resources Thor has a better power suit of his own (he gets it at half cost from "Cleric of myself") PLUS a staff of "Summon 20 minions in power suits" and then he casts "Thor's Might" and gets even better!

Previous editions magic swords were a fighter/fighter subclass class feature, they were very common in modules and the random treasure tables, they were the best magic weapons and only those classes could use them, and you couldn't really trade them in for other items. It made sense to count "can use magic swords" as a significant power-up for some classes.

But in a class comparison in 3.x the classes with the best use of items are exactly the casters, so there's no good reason to credit the non-casters with any particular item without crediting the casters for a comparable cost item, but conversely, those found wands and scrolls pretty well all go to the casters for obvious reasons and the caster gets gear at half cost. Played by the book with random or module items the caster gets MORE BLING, it's Thor in a power suit BETTER than Iron Man's.

[Tholomyes]

This combination of things has led us to this strange world wherein we totally expect a "just like us, but maybe a touch stronger human fighter" to be equal and on par to elves slinging reality bending spells and expect them to have no help at all from gear and such. A world where we want to see Iron Man vs Thor, but "oh can we not have Iron Man in that silly metal suit with all his technology and stuff? The DM will just take it all away"I see it less as Iron Man vs. Thor, and more Captain America vs Thor. I don't like it when a class is designed around being dependent on magic items, not from a "The DM will take it away" argument, but from the side of "I want my character to be powerful, on their own, not just as a result of their equipment" Maybe one key magic item, like your Excaliber or your Captain America Shield, but for the most part, it's them. Which is part of the reason I don't like playing at higher levels. While I don't mind the notion that a high-level fighter should become, in some aspects, slightly superhuman, D&D seems adverse to that notion, and the best I've seen them try to fix it (4e excluded, which had it's own problems) was to just throw Magic items at them.

[Kaervaslol]

The solution to item crafting and magic markets is simple: do not take them as a base line.

It's a personal thing, but in my realms there are no magic items stores and the knowledge to craft such devices is long lost. You could, potentially, craft something. But in my criteria it should be an event that takes something from the wizard and gives it to the item. The thing created has to be a metaphor of something, it should have meaning.

[PinkysBrain]

and thus have it play by the same rules as the rest of the magic system
ToB had two and a bit sets of rules for the resource management of blade magic.

There are ways to make it feel fundamentally different (the most important of which in my opinion is no dailies).

[Angelalex242]

Well...

If you wanna be King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, or Sir Galahad, play a Paladin
If you wanna be Aragorn or Robin Hood, play a Ranger
If you wanna be Conan, play a Barbarian.

If you just want to hit people with pointy objects till they fall down, be a Fighter.

Now, it's a key thing that the fighting classes need to not step on each other's toes.

A fighter has no faith supporting him like a Paladin
He isn't supported by nature either, that's a Ranger.
Neither is he supported by so much primal rage he can bite a vulture to death while nailed to a cross. That's a barbarian.

The fighter's niche, then, is tactics...all those 'special moves' in theory anyone can do...the fighter does those better. Trip, combat reflexes, bull rush, etc. Now, some of those things, the other classes may do well, but they'll only ever do one of them well. Barbarians may be able to bull rush like a mack truck, but they won't be tripping anyone. Rangers might well be tripping, however, emulating wolves too much, but they won't be bull rushing, and naturally the self sacrificing Paladin can protect as well as a Fighter, but he's far too honorable to trip his opponent, or bull rush him.

I think the best thing that could be done for fighter is, instead of making them choose between stat increases or feats, they get stat increases AND a feat.

[1337 b4k4]

The problem is that there are no mundane only items, there are many caster only items (especially wands, which are a great deal), the casters can make items to get them at a discount, and items can be purchased and sold.

Previous editions magic swords were a fighter/fighter subclass class feature, they were very common in modules and the random treasure tables, they were the best magic weapons and only those classes could use them, and you couldn't really trade them in for other items. It made sense to count "can use magic swords" as a significant power-up for some classes.


Indeed, which is why in the very post you're responding to, I listed 3 issues that I saw conflating together to cause this problem, and the number one issue on that list was the removal of the old restrictions on magic. In fact, I even specifically called out the fact that fighters used to have access to magic items that were fighter only items. But there is more to this than just "blame it on the wizards". There is in fact a faction of people who truly seem to believe that using magic items for your power boosting is wrong. They want the characters to be inherently that strong. Case in point ...


but from the side of "I want my character to be powerful, on their own, not just as a result of their equipment" Maybe one key magic item, like your Excaliber or your Captain America Shield, but for the most part, it's them.

Well, to be fair, Captain America had two magic items, the shield and the whole "I'm a super hero now" serum. Take that away and you have a guy in a funny suit. As you express, you sort of fall into my 3rd category of thinking. That fighters in D&D (and indeed all non casters) should be ridiculously powerful, just naturally so. I find this unconvincing. Even super heroes have a source of their powers (and for that matter a weakness to be exploited). So should D&D fighters. Wizards without their spells are nothing more than dragon appetizers (on a power scale). But a fighter with innate abilities to slice mountains in half is unstoppable. If we want our fighters to be magical, then let's make them magical. Let's define their power source and their systems and make it work. I have no issues with that (and have floated my own ideas on the topic), but I don't subscribe to the idea that somehow they should just naturally be as powerful as a wizard just because.


ToB had two and a bit sets of rules for the resource management of blade magic.

There are ways to make it feel fundamentally different (the most important of which in my opinion is no dailies).

Agreed. And as I've said before, I thought the 4e fighter was largely one of the best attempts at it, and I am rather disappointed that (based on the current hearsay) the alternative fighter options in the PHB will not be expansions on that idea and the ideas floated early in the playtest. Please note I'm not saying an interesting and powerful fighter can't be made (see my post in another thread with respect to a round-by-round recharge for some of my ideas on that), or even that it isn't possible without giving them vancian casting. I'm addressing where I believe this odd mentality of not giving fighter magic has come from.

[Sartharina]

Well, to be fair, Captain America had two magic items, the shield and the whole "I'm a super hero now" serum. Take that away and you have a guy in a funny suit. As you express, you sort of fall into my 3rd category of thinking. That fighters in D&D (and indeed all non casters) should be ridiculously powerful, just naturally so. I find this unconvincing. Even super heroes have a source of their powers (and for that matter a weakness to be exploited). So should D&D fighters. Wizards without their spells are nothing more than dragon appetizers (on a power scale). But a fighter with innate abilities to slice mountains in half is unstoppable. If we want our fighters to be magical, then let's make them magical. Let's define their power source and their systems and make it work. I have no issues with that (and have floated my own ideas on the topic), but I don't subscribe to the idea that somehow they should just naturally be as powerful as a wizard just because.
Actually - I don't think I saw Captain America do anything physically impossible His "Super Hero Serum" did nothing more than set all physical attributes to 20.

[Anonymouswizard]

I haven't managed to find a group to play 5e with yet, but my view is that it's less "the fighter is awful" than "spellcasters and warriors are based on different power levels". I can create a warrior as powerful as those in several myths within 10 levels, maybe needing 20 for those capable of taking on entire armies by themselves (which I'm fairly certain few mythological heroes did, Gilgamesh didn't, and I can't think of any from classical mythology, the only name that springs to mind is Cuchulain), but spellcasters are far beyond the mythological power level (in the few mythologies I know no spellcaster could do much, transformations, illusions and divination being the most common), and so the first thing I'd do is remove that damaging dealing and hard battlefield control roles from spellcasters, leaving them with mainly support, soft disabling and illusions.

I also agree with the ideas of making basic combat manoeuvres balanced for all warriors and giving martial classes their own unique thing. For fighters I'm going to echo the ideas of stances that provide passive benefits (and suggest for a simpler fighter just stay in the 'slayer' stance), or warlord style manoeuvres (ranging from gain bonus damage when flanking to ally makes basic attack to shift into mod allies one square to intimidate all enemies within 30 feet to take a level of fatigue but target must make a con save or die), but don't think that being 'the feat class' is going to do anything as long as other classes get feats.

For the 'new players spend ages picking feats', that's not true for all newbies. In my experience people prefer to create characters together to get story ideas worked out before the game begins, with the newbie looking through the player's handbook classes while everyone else discussed character concepts, with the main reason it wasn't done within half an hour being all the socialising. I'd also argue that D&D is a bad system for roleplaying newbies (I'd go for fate and then Dark Heresy myself), and so consider that the idea of a newbie friendly class to be a redundant idea (if I wanted to run D&D with newbies I'd find a copy of BECMI or use basic fantasy).

[obryn]

The fighter's niche, then, is tactics...all those 'special moves' in theory anyone can do...the fighter does those better. Trip, combat reflexes, bull rush, etc. Now, some of those things, the other classes may do well, but they'll only ever do one of them well. Barbarians may be able to bull rush like a mack truck, but they won't be tripping anyone. Rangers might well be tripping, however, emulating wolves too much, but they won't be bull rushing, and naturally the self sacrificing Paladin can protect as well as a Fighter, but he's far too honorable to trip his opponent, or bull rush him.

I think the best thing that could be done for fighter is, instead of making them choose between stat increases or feats, they get stat increases AND a feat.
I can't see much space between your first paragraph and the lackluster 3e Fighter.

And the second is just more big numbers.

[Sartharina]

For the 'new players spend ages picking feats', that's not true for all newbies. In my experience people prefer to create characters together to get story ideas worked out before the game begins, with the newbie looking through the player's handbook classes while everyone else discussed character concepts, with the main reason it wasn't done within half an hour being all the socialising. I'd also argue that D&D is a bad system for roleplaying newbies (I'd go for fate and then Dark Heresy myself), and so consider that the idea of a newbie friendly class to be a redundant idea (if I wanted to run D&D with newbies I'd find a copy of BECMI or use basic fantasy).

THis is an unacceptable stance for WotC. Dungeons & Dragons needs to remain the premier RPG, and the only way it can do that is if it brings in new players, and is the first RPG those players get into, to be the baseline they all return to.
I can't see much space between your first paragraph and the lackluster 3e Fighter.

And the second is just more big numbers.The lackluster 3e fighter could only be specced to do one of those things. That said, the 4e fighter is better.

The constraints on the system make the Big Numbers take a quality of their own, giving reliability to actions taken and opening up new opportunites.

[Pex]

That'd be nice, if it was called Combat Focus. But it isn't. It's Rage. You get angry and then you aren't allowed to use your Intelligence or Wisdom for higher level thinking anymore. You get angry and stupid and strong. And then you get sleepy when it's over.

Intelligence itself is based off of an attribute which admittedly can be increased by anyone. Not that the barbarian actually has any particular reason to do so, and as to the skills. Sorry, I've met enough hunters to know they can be dumb as bricks and still know how to survive in the wild.

And even if I do accept that the barbarian was despite this supposed to be the intelligent fighter, it still was limited with the "I hit things and make them fall down" mentality that I am railing against in the first place. That's not how combat works, no fictional character I have ever seen fought like that and it's boring as hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m6UKS1L0YQ

:smallcool:

[Tholomyes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m6UKS1L0YQ

:smallcool:Hulk has some variation in how he smashes, at least. He might grab someone, and smash them against the floor repeatedly, or toss Tanks at them, or smash the ground, destabilizing everyone around him, or what have you. The hulk has more variety in what he can do regularly, and not only that, but once combat ends, he gets some sweet Knowledge skills.

Though, that does give me an idea for a Barbarian Sage, who is basically the Fantasy version of the Hulk.

[Dienekes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m6UKS1L0YQ

:smallcool:

I see a frenzied mixture of grabbing, throwing, stomping, body slams, tripping, and leaping. Though I guess I'll concede this point, if your character is as strong as the Tarrasque then I guess I can see you only smashing. That's not really what I have an interest in playing though.

[Sartharina]

You can do all that in D&D. The 'problem' is it's all treated the same as the rest of the combat situation. (Except perhaps with more ability checks thrown in)

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0xSqLrG-ow

What we see here is several attacks/round, moving before, during, and after each attack (Just a simple attack), the two using their Defensive trait to protect each other when possible, in addition to relying on... I have no idea where they're getting that kind of AC without armor, but it seems to be pretty high. :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

One of my friends I was speaking to who also plays D&D and Pathfinder made me more aware of just how out-of-touch this board seems to be with how (Some, at least) people play D&D.

The quote was "Your DM's a **** if he doesn't let your STR 18 fighter bash an enemy across the room with a shield" - even though there are no mechanics for actually doing so in the game.

And looking at 4e, I can see why his group never got it: Why are you restricting people to specific powers they're able to use? In Pathfinder/D&D/D&D 5e, an Attack can be anything, with a basic resolution mechanic. D&D Next makes this even easier with Proficiency, instead of trying to bring in millions of subsystems like skills, feats, etc.

Well in 4e any character could try to bash somebody across the battlefield with a shield but sadly like every other edition the basic rules for it would make for something less effective than actually just attacking him or finding a power that actually does this job but better. 4e did have a basic mechanic in the PHB that could be used for almost any type of non-standard attack. It isn't well known because 1. it is fairly obscure and 2. it is generally much weaker than using a standard class power so even if you know of it you probably would not use it anyway except for very limited situations (such as pushing an enemy off of a cliff). Granted for that I would think the standard bull rush attack would work just fine though it would also be weaker than a good class power.

This is true in about every edition though in truth. In 3e if you want to do something like that and not suck at it or have it be a waste of an action you would have to buy the mechanical abilities to do so.

In 2e if you wanted to do that well you needed sword and shield style or you would lose out on your AC bonus so once again in order for it to be worth it you had to invest into the ability.

[Dienekes]

And again. I see striking at arms and legs to dismember the enemy before killing them. I see enemies stunned with a bit by their shield used to line up their next attack. I see a cool dodge and a combat roll to avoid an attack of opportunity. Shields are wielded as fluidly as weapons to defend not just themselves but their allies as well. I see them taking difficult shots at the enemies neck to get an instant kill. I see a single attack cutting through 3 people and later in the movie a spear thrust that pierces two peoples necks at the same time. Shields being used as barriers to help bull rush the enemy not just back a step but to the point of topping over each other and being crushed beneath the feet of your fellow soldiers.

Yes, you can model that as two blocks of hp hacking at each other, but outside the first two training levels why would you want to?

That's like watching a beautiful ballet, saying "Here, I can do that!" And then showing me a video of fat people twerking.

[Sartharina]

Well in 4e any character could try to bash somebody across the battlefield with a shield but sadly like every other edition the basic rules for it would make for something less effective than actually just attacking him or finding a power that actually does this job but better. 4e did have a basic mechanic in the PHB that could be used for almost any type of non-standard attack. It isn't well known because 1. it is fairly obscure and 2. it is generally much weaker than using a standard class power so even if you know of it you probably would not use it anyway except for very limited situations (such as pushing an enemy off of a cliff). Granted for that I would think the standard bull rush attack would work just fine though it would also be weaker than a good class power.You could also do it by being a Fighter with Tide of Iron and a Bashing Shield (I don't get the "4e has no fluff" argument. It's all there!)... but you were SOL if you DIDN'T have those powers.

[obryn]

The lackluster 3e fighter could only be specced to do one of those things. That said, the 4e fighter is better.

The constraints on the system make the Big Numbers take a quality of their own, giving reliability to actions taken and opening up new opportunites.
The problem here - well, one problem anyway - is that the big numbers don't end up doing any such thing in 5e. They expand your mediocrity.

[Sartharina]

The problem here - well, one problem anyway - is that the big numbers don't end up doing any such thing in 5e. They expand your mediocrity.They sort of do, thanks to the open-ended uses of attacks, saves, and ability checks.

[MeeposFire]

You could also do it by being a Fighter with Tide of Iron and a Bashing Shield (I don't get the "4e has no fluff" argument. It's all there!)... but you were SOL if you DIDN'T have those powers.

Yes that would be the "better powers" that I was thinking of for the fighter specifically. A fighter without those powers could push a critter away with his shield but he would be lack luster but if you chose those powers you could be very awesome. Add another feat and you could do that on a combat challenge so you can picture yourself bashing somebody in the middle of an attack and sending them flying so that they can't hit their target.

Personally I think this discussion has gone too far in a way. I love playing fighters. I want them to be cool but honestly even in 4e where fighters rock with their "special abilities" the vast majority of the powers could have been "make a basic attack and add this effect" (frankly I would have liked it better if that is how it was done as it would have made the system more versatile) which is what it sounds like is going on here. Even with ToB in 3e the maneuvers are mostly "make an attack with an effect" with an awesome name. Certainly the presentation in both make them seem like more but if you boil them down to their basic components that is what they are (for the most part).

What I think makes for the best fighter experience is making the class able to make use of tactics and strategy. Think of the 4e warlord or the white raven maneuvers. The ability to boost allies and control the fight can be very fun and can fit a fighter niche. I also think we can take a page from the rogue and the striker concept from 4e. THe part I am thinking of is how many striker mechanics gave the bonus damage under certain circumstances and if you make it a tactic it rewards smart play with your fighter. Yes you still walk up and hit but now you think of where you should be or what target to attack. One idea I had for a 4e striker (but never got around to completing) was a fighter that gained a bonus to damage when ignored (building momentum) and lost it if attacked but if he was attacked he could deal a vicious counter attack. Fairly over powered in the long run unless I can find a sweet spot in the numbers (especially with a defender) but these sort of concepts give you things to consider while you play which can be interesting.

Another important thing that should be done is to insure that the fighter has a clear job (or several that you can choose from). AD&D and 4e did this well as in both of those editions other classes of a different type (paladins, rangers, and the like would be considered fighter type classes) could not overshadow the fighter in his role (whatever it was chosen to be). The reason why people have this bad taste in their mouths about fighters is mostly due to 3e where the fighter was still "simple" to play (that was a complaint and praise of the AD&D fighter) but unlike the other editions other classes, and most importantly, especially casters could do his job and do it even better than he could. He was potentially expendable and some even make arguments that he is a bigger drain on the party than a boost at higher levels (I think that is hyperbole but you do see the argument). Wizards can't really do that in AD&D or in 4e and that helps keep the fighter p[layers happy.

I want fighters to have cool things but I think some of the suggestions here are difficult to implement in a fun fashion that is also not unwieldy. A computer game does not care if a mechanic requires a lot of variables to run but you at the gaming table do. Though this does bring to my mind that I think they made a mistake with the fighter capstone in that it gives so many attacks. I am not 100% sure where I draw the line of fun and awesome to tedious due to the number of attack roles in a round. They may have been better to have slightly less attacks but more damage on each but I guess that is another story.

[captpike]

So, basically the system just gets bypassed entirely. Not only is this not relevant to what the system actually has in it, it seems questionably functional. A level 1 fighter automatically disarming a level 20 barbarian or similar just seems absurd.

As for the actual system - yes, Fighters are boring. That's not really a problem, as some people like boring, and they are at least capable of contributing this time. One persons meaningful mechanical options is another person's pointless busywork.

having boring classes is not always a bad thing, as long as the choice of complexity is not also the choice for type of class.

so if I want to play a class that is like a fighter, but as interesting and complex as a wizard I can, just as if I want to play a caster as simple as the current fighter I can.

but at this point it seams unlikely they will do that, they seam more concerned with honoring the sacred cows then with making a good game.

[Knaight]

I can't see much space between your first paragraph and the lackluster 3e Fighter.

And the second is just more big numbers.

The issue with the 3e fighter was more the feats than anything. So many of them were just so sad and pathetic, and as such they didn't contribute much. While we haven't seen the 5e feats yet, the playtest feats at least generally had something going for them.

After all, the core of the 3e fighter was 11 extra slots to stick something interesting into. We saw similar with SAGA and the talent paths, and it worked just fine there. It's just that 3e fighter feats were frequently a joke. Dodge? Weapon Focus? Weapon Specialization? Seriously, Dodge? There's so much there that is profoundly unimpressive. The few feats that opened something up were usually restricted to way too high level and had a bunch of prerequisites. There's really no reason for Whirlwind Attack to require a bunch of prerequisites, it honestly isn't that impressive. Cleave and Great Cleave being two feats is just silly. So on and so forth.

[MeeposFire]

having boring classes is not always a bad thing, as long as the choice of complexity is not also the choice for type of class.

so if I want to play a class that is like a fighter, but as interesting and complex as a wizard I can, just as if I want to play a caster as simple as the current fighter I can.

but at this point it seams unlikely they will do that, they seam more concerned with honoring the sacred cows then with making a good game.

Sadly honoring sacred cows appear to be in their best interest. Not honoring these specific sacred cows and trying something new is what had them trying to do this in the first place (even if I did like them trying something new in 4e).

[MeeposFire]

The issue with the 3e fighter was more the feats than anything. So many of them were just so sad and pathetic, and as such they didn't contribute much. While we haven't seen the 5e feats yet, the playtest feats at least generally had something going for them.

After all, the core of the 3e fighter was 11 extra slots to stick something interesting into. We saw similar with SAGA and the talent paths, and it worked just fine there. It's just that 3e fighter feats were frequently a joke. Dodge? Weapon Focus? Weapon Specialization? Seriously, Dodge? There's so much there that is profoundly unimpressive. The few feats that opened something up were usually restricted to way too high level and had a bunch of prerequisites. There's really no reason for Whirlwind Attack to require a bunch of prerequisites, it honestly isn't that impressive. Cleave and Great Cleave being two feats is just silly. So on and so forth.

Sadly you care correct that most feats were not worth it so that caused many of the problems that 3e fighters had. It wasn't the only problem sadly. Fighters also had to deal with a major loss of mobility and survivability in the 3e transition (AD&D fighters had great saving throws and could move half their speed and make all their attacks which is a huge help). Also the ability for casters to so easily take over the fighters jobs did not help either.

[Tholomyes]

Sadly honoring sacred cows appear to be in their best interest. Not honoring these specific sacred cows and trying something new is what had them trying to do this in the first place (even if I did like them trying something new in 4e).I expect some of this apparent reactionary ferver will fade shortly into the system's life. While Mearls doesn't always have the best grasp on system math, and while he's made some decisions I disagree with, I don't think he (or the rest of the design team) are stupid. One thing they need to do, is rebuild their player base, and try to get back players who since went off to retroclones and Pathfinder, as well as attract new fans. This all speaks to honoring certain sacred cows, especially when getting rid of them would complicate the game for new players. However systemic problems that the game has had since OD&D or AD&D or 3e or whenever have you don't just vanish by putting a fresh coat of paint on it, and they know this. That is why there exist subclasses, so they can give themselves an out on matters like complex fighters, and the like. The base game must allow for simple, sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have room for complexity. I suspect we'll see future Supplements which expand the battlemaster's options of Manuevers, and we're almost certain to see more feats, and likely subclasses which expand complexity further. Plus, we have no idea if the DMG will make good on their promise of Modularity. Many people are writing off Modularity, without any evidence that it does not exist. While I admit, I feel am giving perhaps too much credit to Mearls et al, and even I feel I am being a bit overly optimistic, I also feel that we have very little information with which to make informed decisions about the system for the future.

As you appear to be a fan of 4e, I'm sure you can acknowledge that the PHB launch, though significantly more complex than the 5e we've seen glimpses of, would have also shown much cause for concern. It lacked many core races and classes, such as Half-Orc, Bard, Barbarian, ect, and had less than exemplary customization options. Frequently your choice between powers would be slim, as your chosen style would make some options not viable. An archery ranger, for example, might find herself at a choice of powers, where only a couple are even usable for archers, never mind effective. However quickly options were released with PHB 2 and [Source] Power books, and the like, which broadened options considerably.

In systems such as D&D, I rarely think the PHB launch is a good measure of the system, going forward. We have some information on the core launch, but very little on how they will support it, or what the DMG will provide, in terms of allowing for greater complexity. We just don't know, so I feel uncomfortable making judgements right away, on the system.

[Knaight]

Sadly you care correct that most feats were not worth it so that caused many of the problems that 3e fighters had. It wasn't the only problem sadly. Fighters also had to deal with a major loss of mobility and survivability in the 3e transition (AD&D fighters had great saving throws and could move half their speed and make all their attacks which is a huge help). Also the ability for casters to so easily take over the fighters jobs did not help either.

That much is also true. There's a serious case to be made for Fighters having all good saves, and the magic power bloat also ended up damaging the Fighter in comparison.

[Tholomyes]

On the topic of a fighter getting all good saves, that actually makes more sense to me than the Paladin. In fiction, you often see your fighter-equivalent shrug off things ranging from mind-affecting spells, to poisons which would kill a normal man (hello, Dread Pirate Roberts), or what have you (frequently, this is more because they're the hero than anything, but it's still a fairly common fighter trope). Paladins, on the other hand, would seem more flavorful to get the fighter ability, described as invoking their faith to resist an effect.

I understand the concept that a Paladin, as a sort of knight in shining armor, should be a paragon of sorts, which gives some reasoning behind boosted saves, but I think a potential better way to represent that would be with various auras of courage or the like.

[Gettles]

The problem with the whole "the Fighter just needs to improvise and the DM to play ball" is if the player thinks of the fighter as Dante from Devil May Cry and the DM think of him as Conan the Barbarian and the flavor text never seems to be more than "he is good with weapons" so both sides end up thinking the other is unreasonable.

[1337 b4k4]

The problem with the whole "the Fighter just needs to improvise and the DM to play ball" is if the player thinks of the fighter as Dante from Devil May Cry and the DM think of him as Conan the Barbarian and the flavor text never seems to be more than "he is good with weapons" so both sides end up thinking the other is unreasonable.

The solution to this is to explain to the DM that while it is their world, the character is the player's. If you've agreed to allow a player to play their character, then you should take them at their word with regards to that character. The DM's job is not to run a player's character, it's to resolve the effects of that character's actions as stated by the player, at times using the given mechanics to help resolve the situation. Sadly for too long, DMs and Players alike (for different reasons) have chained themselves to the rules as law. It's basically an offshoot of the "farmer" issue from another thread. You shouldn't need 10 skills related to farming in your rules, and your players shouldn't need to take 5 ranks in each to be a competent farmer. If you player says "Fightor McStabbysword was raised as a farm boy" then that should be considered the truth, and all the implications thereof should also be true. Yes, sometimes expectations will still be different, but that's what communication and good faith are for. Frankly I would rather spend 5 minutes in game discussing whether it's really reasonable for a farmer turned fighter to have been raising basilisks on their farm than have to slog through 10 pages of farming feats and have to require my players to either spend character building resources on those feats or worse, have half a ton of character building resources so that they can be that sort of well rounded character. The same it true of the fighter. If we're going to have the "Fighter" class, whose thing is "really really good at fighting" then that should be sufficient. We shouldn't need to require the fighter to spend character building resources just to get to a basic level of competence.

[Vitruviansquid]

Here's as couple thoughts:

1. We are here worried about the condition of fighters in 5e being too much like the much maligned fighters in 3e, but it was the fighters in 3e who were actually functional from a balance standpoint. DM's didn't come onto the boards complaining that fighters were breaking their games, and there aren't people making posts about awesome undefeatable fighters they could build. Class balance in DnD isn't a zero sum game - you don't just need every class to be as powerful as every other class, you also need to balance the classes against the monsters that WotC prescribe as their opponents at every level. In this sense, it's really less that fighters are in a minority of underpowered classes as it is that wizards are in a majority of overpowered classes.

2. There are two types of players. the first type wants to play complex, nuanced classes that allow them to really get into the mechanics and gaming aspect. That type of player wants complicated classes with a lot of crunch and room for customization. In 3e, they played druids and wizards and other spell-casting classes. The second type wants to play something streamlined and straightforward, and in 3e they played fighters and rogues and other mundane classes that were much simpler.

There are also players that want to play spellcasters, players that want to be hulking sword-wielding dudes, players that want to be light and sneaky, and so on.

It might seem kind of obvious, but I never see it mentioned in conversations like this. You're going to have players who really want complex, nuanced classes who also want to be hulking swordsmen and you're going to have players who want streamlined and straightforward classes but want their characters to be mages. (As an aside, this is actually how it works in most MMORPG's, where the fighter-type "tanks" tend to be the most difficult to play, require the most knowledge and dedication, and have the most impact on a fight whereas the the mage-type "damage dealers" are considered more accessible and expendable.) Under the paradigms from 3e neither of those players I just described will be satisfied. "I want my complexity, but I don't want it as a skinny, staff-wielding nerd" or "I want my simplicity, but I don't want it as a dumb jock warrior."

So it seems like the ideal choice for WOTC is to give people streamlined fighting classes and complex fighting classes, as well as streamlined spellcasters and complex spellcasters, but upon reflection, they did that awhile ago with Tome of Battle and 4e... and grognards hated them for some reason.

I don't get it, man. Life is hard.

[Knaight]

1. We are here worried about the condition of fighters in 5e being too much like the much maligned fighters in 3e, but it was the fighters in 3e who were actually functional from a balance standpoint. DM's didn't come onto the boards complaining that fighters were breaking their games, and there aren't people making posts about awesome undefeatable fighters they could build. Class balance in DnD isn't a zero sum game - you don't just need every class to be as powerful as every other class, you also need to balance the classes against the monsters that WotC prescribe as their opponents at every level. In this sense, it's really less that fighters are in a minority of underpowered classes as it is that wizards are in a majority of overpowered classes.
Sure, but there were a lot of complaints from the "Fighters are boring as all heck" and the "Fighters are utterly ineffective" angle.


It might seem kind of obvious, but I never see it mentioned in conversations like this. You're going to have players who really want complex, nuanced classes who also want to be hulking swordsmen and you're going to have players who want streamlined and straightforward classes but want their characters to be mages. (As an aside, this is actually how it works in most MMORPG's, where the fighter-type "tanks" tend to be the most difficult to play, require the most knowledge and dedication, and have the most impact on a fight whereas the the mage-type "damage dealers" are considered more accessible and expendable.) Under the paradigms from 3e neither of those players I just described will be satisfied. "I want my complexity, but I don't want it as a skinny, staff-wielding nerd" or "I want my simplicity, but I don't want it as a dumb jock warrior."
Tome of Battle just about covered this on the complex martial side. Simple mages were less supported, though the Warlock was in that niche.

5e's core design of classes which basically have built in subclasses has the capacity to do the same thing. Whether or not they actually will is debatable.

[Morty]

If we're going to have the "Fighter" class, whose thing is "really really good at fighting" then that should be sufficient. We shouldn't need to require the fighter to spend character building resources just to get to a basic level of competence.

Yeah, seriously. It's not even about balance, which is a tricky thing at best. It's about supposedly trained combatants not having to pay resources to stop being inept. Which fighters do, in 5e - both due to having to take the Battlemaster sub-class and having to pick whether they'd like to parry or disarm.

[Tholomyes]

Here's as couple thoughts:

1. We are here worried about the condition of fighters in 5e being too much like the much maligned fighters in 3e, but it was the fighters in 3e who were actually functional from a balance standpoint. DM's didn't come onto the boards complaining that fighters were breaking their games, and there aren't people making posts about awesome undefeatable fighters they could build. Class balance in DnD isn't a zero sum game - you don't just need every class to be as powerful as every other class, you also need to balance the classes against the monsters that WotC prescribe as their opponents at every level. In this sense, it's really less that fighters are in a minority of underpowered classes as it is that wizards are in a majority of overpowered classes. The fact that they were nominally balanced (well for combat anyway; For non-combat, you're just SoL, I guess. Fortunately 5e has Backgrounds at the very minimum) doesn't mean they weren't boring as hell, which was why they were so frequently maligned. Numerical balance is less of a concern to me (and, I suspect many others who are posting in this thread) than whether all classes have the ability to meaningfully contribute both in and out of combat, and that their contributions are the result of meaningful choices (i.e, the character can't just be played on autopilot). Due to backgrounds, the out of combat aspect may be less of an issue than in previous editions (we'll have to wait and see whether spells obsolete skills like they did in 3.x at higher levels), but for combat, what this means is that the Battlemaster fighter needs to be well supported in future supplements, and maneuvers and feats need to be made an important priority to R&D, going forward .


2. There are two types of players. the first type wants to play complex, nuanced classes that allow them to really get into the mechanics and gaming aspect. That type of player wants complicated classes with a lot of crunch and room for customization. In 3e, they played druids and wizards and other spell-casting classes. The second type wants to play something streamlined and straightforward, and in 3e they played fighters and rogues and other mundane classes that were much simpler.

There are also players that want to play spellcasters, players that want to be hulking sword-wielding dudes, players that want to be light and sneaky, and so on.

It might seem kind of obvious, but I never see it mentioned in conversations like this. You're going to have players who really want complex, nuanced classes who also want to be hulking swordsmen and you're going to have players who want streamlined and straightforward classes but want their characters to be mages. (As an aside, this is actually how it works in most MMORPG's, where the fighter-type "tanks" tend to be the most difficult to play, require the most knowledge and dedication, and have the most impact on a fight whereas the the mage-type "damage dealers" are considered more accessible and expendable.) Under the paradigms from 3e neither of those players I just described will be satisfied. "I want my complexity, but I don't want it as a skinny, staff-wielding nerd" or "I want my simplicity, but I don't want it as a dumb jock warrior."

So it seems like the ideal choice for WOTC is to give people streamlined fighting classes and complex fighting classes, as well as streamlined spellcasters and complex spellcasters, but upon reflection, they did that awhile ago with Tome of Battle and 4e... and grognards hated them for some reason.

I don't get it, man. Life is hard.I've been arguing this point for a while now. I often get (depending on where I post) either baffled responses (to the tune of "well, if you wanted more complexity, why not just play a caster?" ignoring the fact that this is a role playing game, and thus I might actually want to roleplay a fighter rather than a caster. Strangely these are also the people who tend to give 4e **** for 'destroying Role Playing'; as I've said before, I have a lot of issues with 4e, so I'm not going to spend much energy defending it, even though my issues never came down to role playing in that system, but it feels pretty hypocritical to say that a system 'destroyed role playing', while also refusing to accept why someone might want to role play a class they mechanically dislike) or sympathetic 'It sucks, but what can be done?' posts.

My hope is that the battlemaster fighter is a first foray into a more mechanically satisfying series of subclasses which borrow from the ToB style design. Given that one of the feats listed in the L&L column is called "Martial Adept" I have some hope, though I'm still in the wait-and-see stage.

[Fwiffo86]

In this sense, it's really less that fighters are in a minority of underpowered classes as it is that wizards are in a majority of overpowered classes.


This I agree with 100%. Don't forget that the first Character to complete all the levels of Castle Greyhawk was a lone fighter with no supporting characters.

I honestly think that 3e attempted to make things "easier", with only addition, bizarre multi-class rules, etc. Which as a concept, they did do, but at the same time, opened the door for mass power gaming. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but from a DM point of view, it was a major hassle trying to balance a table that has one UBER character, and several other characters just playing to have fun.

While I think the Tier system is a fallacy and a method of saying, if you don't build/use this you are wrong, I cannot argue that the giant tool box that spell casters get is over powering. Limitations must be placed, or you get characters that can do everyone's job because some designer somewhere thought, "I will make a spell for that".

I think the "Make a spell for that" IS whats wrong with previous editions. Too many spells spoil the classes thinking I guess.

[TheIronGolem]

While I think the Tier system is a fallacy and a method of saying, if you don't build/use this you are wrong
It is neither of those things.

[pwykersotz]

It is neither of those things.

Correct, it's a method of quantifying classes in a way that allows a lot of understanding to be communicated in very few words. Anyone who says that you're doing it wrong if you're not Tier 1 is more or less a troll, whether they intend to be or not.

[SiuiS]

Well, for starters, if you want a feat at 1st, there's always "alt" humans.

Personally, I think feats are pretty terrible in both 3e and 4e. I don't love their inclusion in 5e, but the fact that you at least aren't slammed with a "pick 1 of these 200 things" right out the gate is very nice.

There's something to be said for keeping complexity back from 1st level. In this case, you get to it soon enough, anyway.

Interesting.

It may be that when I was in my individual-formative years I had more 2e than 1e/older access, but... 3e basically took how 2e was played at most tables, said "we are making these houserules into rules now", and fixed a lot of things. Feats were neat, when 3e hit the shelves, becauS they separated quality from quantity. You no longer had to choose between being able to sail a ship and being able to jump kick, they were different tracks. Feats were conceptually useful. It wasn't until the M:tG stuff crept in, such as "if a feat is written to let you do something, you perforce cannot do something without that feat" that we really saw problems. RAW is a crap concept.

So from that point of view, I don't see it. Why are feats a crap concept? They really strike me as the kind of thing you would be all on board with.


That's what I thought you'd say. Either that, or that you'd never actually created any characters yourself, but the former was much more likely.

When I set up my home wireless network, it was back in the days of WEP. I put in the hex encoding of my 128-bit key so many times that I memorized it. I later upgraded to better security methods, but I kept that hex encoding as my passphrase, because I'd already memorized a 26-character string of apparently random gobbledygook that no one was ever going to guess. Everyone else on the network complains, though.

Does this mean that memorizing 26-character strings is easy? No; it means that I put in an inordinate amount of time on something, such that it only seems second-nature to me. I posit that the same has happened with you and feat choices: you've done it so many times that, having probably memorized half the core feat list by now, it seems second-nature to you. You've lost sight of how difficult it really is, just like me with my favorite passphrase.

Any core part of a newbie's initial impressions of the game that requires "system mastery" to do in a reasonable amount of time is a fundamental flaw in the system.

I am going to remember you for the future, so when I have to explain this concept again I can have you do it. You're much more articulate than I.


Yes, and the ones that aren't tend to be obligatory because of the game's math. The feats I'd call worthwhile is stuff like Versatile Duelist, which, like I mentioned in my edit, opens up a whole new archetype the rogue can portray, one that D&D has otherwise spent a great deal of effort ignoring. Which is nice. Or that feat the name of which I forget that lets the rogue shift more anytime she does so. Feats are fine, in theory, as a relatively class-neutral means of 'rounding' characters. They're just really prone to bloat and feat tax.

Have you checked out ACKS? How does the proficiency system there stack up with what you want out of a binary qualifier system/compared to what's good in 4e?


Yeah, this. It's not even about pure power in comparison to other classes, it's just that the Champion Fighter is so staggeringly inept at anything resembling actual combat, much less dramatic, heroic martial arts. Standing in place or running around and swinging isn't anything any real warrior has ever done, and don't get me started on more larger-than-life ones.

Oh bugger I forgot what I was going to say here. Darn.


(All of this is spoken in a nice calm voice. Not trying to be mean here or anything like that. Specially not calling out Obryn or anyone else even though he is quoted)

Not trolling and I honestly take a small bit of offense to that. Not much but a small minute amount lol. Im done with the argument because my views and facts from my table just wont sway someone dead set on being against it. See previous posts for my argument. At my table its Fighter up front, Wizard in the back. Fighter keeps people from getting to Wizard. Wizard controls the Battlefield. Cleric Jack of All Trades the holes in the combat. Rogues hit where needed to drop things. We play a simple game. I try to bring more than Hack and Slash to my games but its lost on most of the group. Social Encounters are handled by a few people who are interested in that, and the group lets the best person for the Job do it. Spells are not used in those situations 8 out of 10 times. So I guess we play DnD the way Wizards of the Coast sees people playing DnD. Its not wrong

Even other games I play in with other people. No connection to any OTHER game I play in, its pretty much the same way. So yea in my experience the Wizard up on a pedestal is a joke. Its no fun if one person Trivializes the rest of a Party. I should know because I have done it accidentally once or twice with 3.5, and I wasnt even playing a Spell Caster. I dont see it happening much in 5th. HELL the PHB isnt even out yet and this is going on. We dont even have a full set of rules or full classes or EVEN all of the damn classes. So I really wonder why these conversations are even being started? Yes T0 Optimization is fun. I like it, hell I love it. I love to make characters be all that they can be. But that dont get brought to the table because its not fun for the group.

You said it yourself; "we don't have all the classes or spells yet". But there's no room at the botom; there's no room for a class that's as good or weaker in some areas. There's only room to improve. That's bad. That's bloat.

I've come from a background where the one-upmsanship wasnt a 3e thing. I came from a background where the default group consisted of someone who asked the DM for constant miracles, where a good drow raised by grey elves with four robotic limbs with 16-20 on each stat and the proficiencies to create extra-potent drow sleeping poison was the norm. One-upping happens a lot.

I have also never seen a successful "fighter in front, wizard in back" set up. Ever. In twenty five years. It's just as disingenuous to say you've never seen it so the whole Internet must be wrog as it is to say that you're wrong because the Internet has seen it. We are talking possibilities. The rules could be right enough that no one, ever, gets screwed in this way. But they aren't. So mathematically, someone will get screwed, guaranteed. That is a guaranteed screw that need never happen. That's worth objecting to.


Their signature ability literally makes them unable to think about anything involving intelligence or cunning, just smashing.

Now, yeah. That's the berserker. The signature ability once upon a time was being self-sufficient arcanophobes, with amazing skill at arms honed by a primal, almost supernatural ferocity. The 4e barbarian does a damn better job at "barbarian" than the crapsack "I get angry" we have in common understanding now.


Well there's bullrush, but that's not going to be enough.

My main problem with this kind of playing style is you never know what you can do ... sure you can bash someone across the room. Then you try to bash someone the same distance across the side of a cliff and the DM says no all of a sudden.

Trying to make up on the fly check DCs for this kind of thing in 5e is even worse ... because now you aren't simply letting them do it period, but you are pretending it's part of the game mechanics proper. Creating an even greater expectation that that DC is something they can rely on in the future for similar foes.

Don't these foes get saves?
Honestly, 4e has the solution there. If they fly off a cliff, they come back later with a dramatic story. Simple. Elsewise you make the base system able to handle these things and you stop being a priss who decides to take away a legitimate use of an ability. The problem is not that suddenly the DC isn't reliable, it's that the DM is being a wanker.

Be a fan of the heroes. Let them succeed against you. You're the DM. You aren't supposed to win. Put your ego aside.


Why not? It prevents holes being punched into the main system when you start small and expand, instead of try to start big and contract.

Not so; the base rules are not, cannot, be small. The base system must be the thing from which all thigs derive. You need something that can fractalate; more complex systems must be contained within the larger base. Bolting complexity onto a simple base causes problems; granularity comparison issues, power creep issues, verisimilitude issues, accidental game break combinations...
The key is to be abstract. An abstract system can handle a lot of strain. D&D is currently bad at abstract.


I see it less as Iron Man vs. Thor, and more Captain America vs Thor. I don't like it when a class is designed around being dependent on magic items, not from a "The DM will take it away" argument, but from the side of "I want my character to be powerful, on their own, not just as a result of their equipment" Maybe one key magic item, like your Excaliber or your Captain America Shield, but for the most part, it's them. Which is part of the reason I don't like playing at higher levels. While I don't mind the notion that a high-level fighter should become, in some aspects, slightly superhuman, D&D seems adverse to that notion, and the best I've seen them try to fix it (4e excluded, which had it's own problems) was to just throw Magic items at them.

This is actually an incorrect comparison.

Everyone in D&D relies on Magic. Period.

What does this mean? It means the three basic archetypes in D&D are those who are skillful and strong and will use what magic is available to them in the environment (martial characters), those who will forsake their strength in the search of constant magic (wizards) and those who make deals, recieving magical support most of the time in exchange for giving their skill and strength to a cause (clerics).

The use that captain America doesn't use magic and Thor does is patently false. Everyone gets magic. Your character choice is about whether the magic is inherent or transient. The difference is whether that magic can be taken away or not, and what the costs of that choice are.


So really, the key here is to balance magic against magic items. Somethig 3e may be able to successfully do, with the right mindset.

[Morty]

Have you checked out ACKS? How does the proficiency system there stack up with what you want out of a binary qualifier system/compared to what's good in 4e?

I know of it, but I could never spare enough money to buy it. Unless there's a free version of the rules I'm unaware of.

[PinkysBrain]

So really, the key here is to balance magic against magic items. Somethig 3e may be able to successfully do, with the right mindset.
I agree.

I've never really seen magic item dependency as an inherent problem (an over-abundance of item slots and the big six were a problem though). In my opinion you can have weeaboo fightan magic, magic item dependency or caster supremacy. Pick your poison.

[obryn]

Interesting.

It may be that when I was in my individual-formative years I had more 2e than 1e/older access, but... 3e basically took how 2e was played at most tables, said "we are making these houserules into rules now", and fixed a lot of things. Feats were neat, when 3e hit the shelves, becauS they separated quality from quantity. You no longer had to choose between being able to sail a ship and being able to jump kick, they were different tracks. Feats were conceptually useful. It wasn't until the M:tG stuff crept in, such as "if a feat is written to let you do something, you perforce cannot do something without that feat" that we really saw problems. RAW is a crap concept.

So from that point of view, I don't see it. Why are feats a crap concept? They really strike me as the kind of thing you would be all on board with.
I think there's design space for class-agnostic build features. However, I think feats - as they exist in D&D - don't adequately fill that space.

The general problems are...

(1) Feats are used for everything that's class-agnostic. It's a grab bag - the "Miscellaneous" category that has outgrown your filing system. Learning a language or a skill costs a feat. A special maneuver with a weapon costs a feat. Being awesome with armor costs a feat. A bonus on a class of saving throws costs a feat. It's a tremendous hodge-podge of stuff, mixing together combat, non-combat; bonuses, and new options.
(2) The value of feats are set at "1 feat." This is fine for simplicity, but it doesn't bear out in practice on account of the first issue.
(3) Feats are poorly organized, and quickly bloat beyond reasonable limits given the open design space. Just like with "spells" I tend to think this is an inherent problem with the design, rather than a problem with bloat itself. Bloat is inevitable given this setup.
ed:
(4) They often turn into class features, which is terrible. Getting more feats isn't a class feature, it's just more of what everyone gets. If your class design relies on feats, it's mingling together class-based and class-agnostic features. I can go into this more later, but it's part of why I think the 3e (and 5e) Fighters are so unsatisfying. "More of what everyone gets" isn't a real class feature; it's a cop-out for a class-based game.

How can you fix it? A few ways I can think of.
* You could better-define Feats, or else categorize them into combat vs. noncombat. Otherwise, you're weighing the value of "Resist 3 All" vs. "Know 3 more languages." The latter may be legitimately useful in some campaigns but legitimately useless in others, so they shouldn't compete for the same generic resource.
* Give every feat both combat and non-combat applications
* Tie feats closer to the class structure, like they are in 13th Age, where they are no longer class-agnostic, by and large; they are enhancements to your race or class.
* Organize them in a much smaller number of chains, like you'd find in many CRPGs nowadays. That way, you're not picking from 200 feats; you're picking one of maybe 10 each time, then improving them. This also allows you to effectively set variable costs.
* You should never have to decide between "effective" and "interesting." When given a choice, players tend to go with boring passive bonuses. These boring static bonuses should just be incorporated into the class progressions and just taken as a given, and thus be largely removed from the "feat" design space - which can then be leveraged for more interesting stuff.

e: Also, in both 1e and 4e I've seen successful "Fighter up front, Wizard in back" setups. In 1e, it's largely a result of dungeon environs where corridors made it possible. In 4e, it's because the Fighter's a very well-designed class, and that's how the game works.

[da_chicken]

Correct, it's a method of quantifying classes in a way that allows a lot of understanding to be communicated in very few words. Anyone who says that you're doing it wrong if you're not Tier 1 is more or less a troll, whether they intend to be or not.

The tier system is a measure of potential power for a caster, and (IMO) a commonly observed power for martials. That, IMO, makes it fundamentally flawed. In generally it assumes casters always have the right spell prepared because they change them every day (because they might), while martials will always suffer from encounters where they can't contribute (because they might not). That's not a fair representation, IMO. I'm not saying it's wrong (and I won't be responding to any tier dogma defenders) and casters are very overpowering in 3.x, but it paints a very biased picture where casters get evaluated at their best and martials get evaluated at their average.

The problem with the tier system is that it presents a false composition. Not all Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are tier 1. In our games, most are tier 3 or low tier 2. Most clerics are forced to be low tier 3 because we have 8 players and for some reason there's almost never more than one cleric (to my unending frustration). Depending on the player, I've seen some tier 4 casters. We have one player who between his play style and poor dice rolling will regardless of class always play a tier 5 character (yes, even casters).

I, for one, have seen one tier 1 character in actual play (an Artificer made on a bet with the DM to demonstrate that the class and item creation was overpowered), and only a handful of characters played as tier 2 at level 13+. Our caster players don't want to be walking Gods because either the DM will kill you, the table will make you change your character ("Dude, your character is lame and spoiling the campaign. Dial it back."), or you'll be bored to death. Scry & die never works more than once in a blue moon because the DM will just do it back to us and he's got more resources and better coordination. Yes, the DM has to be fair, but as we've all heard, turnabout is fair play.

Additionally, because the tier system "grades" classes, people mistake the game as a competition and mistake each tier as, well, strict tiers indicating quality of play. "Wizard? That's tier 1! I better play at least tier 3 or I won't be able to have any fun!" That's just not the reality that I've seen, and not a reality that's useful for describing an effective party.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with 5e where no class is likely to be Tier 1 at all.

In my short 5e experience, Wizard spells are very powerful, but they need other characters to protect them. I have no doubt that a party of 4 Wizards would not last very long. Probably not past the first ambush or undead encounter. A party of 4 Fighters, on the other hand, would probably do just fine.

That actually sounds like a fine experiment. Run a party of 4-5 Wizards through Mine of Phanndelver, then repeat it with 4-5 Fighters.


(All of this is spoken in a nice calm voice. Not trying to be mean here or anything like that. Specially not calling out Obryn or anyone else even though he is quoted)

Not trolling and I honestly take a small bit of offense to that. Not much but a small minute amount lol. Im done with the argument because my views and facts from my table just wont sway someone dead set on being against it. See previous posts for my argument. At my table its Fighter up front, Wizard in the back. Fighter keeps people from getting to Wizard. Wizard controls the Battlefield. Cleric Jack of All Trades the holes in the combat. Rogues hit where needed to drop things. We play a simple game. I try to bring more than Hack and Slash to my games but its lost on most of the group. Social Encounters are handled by a few people who are interested in that, and the group lets the best person for the Job do it. Spells are not used in those situations 8 out of 10 times. So I guess we play DnD the way Wizards of the Coast sees people playing DnD. Its not wrong

This mirrors my experience. Anybody bringing a TO build to the table would be told in no uncertain terms to make a real character.


Interesting.

It may be that when I was in my individual-formative years I had more 2e than 1e/older access, but... 3e basically took how 2e was played at most tables, said "we are making these houserules into rules now", and fixed a lot of things. Feats were neat, when 3e hit the shelves, becauS they separated quality from quantity. You no longer had to choose between being able to sail a ship and being able to jump kick, they were different tracks. Feats were conceptually useful. It wasn't until the M:tG stuff crept in, such as "if a feat is written to let you do something, you perforce cannot do something without that feat" that we really saw problems. RAW is a crap concept.

I agree RAW is a crap concept, but I disagree that "if a rule exists to let you do something, the only way to do that thing is to meet the requirements of the rule" is a M:tG thing. That's just how games work. It was true in 1e and 2e, too, but those games had so many pointless and arbitrary restrictions that players thought nothing about ignoring them. Beyond that, the game had so few rules for what you actually could do, DMs were required to make things up as they go along.

Come 3e, and most of the rules make sense and describe about 90% of what the players want to do, and you start to hold the rules in slightly higher esteem. That doesn't mean you should be saving the fatted calf for your alter to RAW, but it explains why DMs are more likely to just follow the express written rule rather than, for example, look at the initiative rules and say, "Holy crap are these slice rules a stupid waste of time. It's like some wargamer made it and I should have chits to track what's going on. Let's just go my turn then you guys all get a turn."


So from that point of view, I don't see it. Why are feats a crap concept? They really strike me as the kind of thing you would be all on board with.

He's talked about it several times. I know he doesn't like having to pick from a giant list of feats and he doesn't like that they're often +2 to minor thing. I don't know if he'd prefer if feats were class-specifc features from a list of 3-5 at each level, or if he'd rather just not deal with them at all.


I've come from a background where the one-upmsanship wasnt a 3e thing. I came from a background where the default group consisted of someone who asked the DM for constant miracles, where a good drow raised by grey elves with four robotic limbs with 16-20 on each stat and the proficiencies to create extra-potent drow sleeping poison was the norm. One-upping happens a lot.

I hate to put it this way because it makes me a jerk, but if you have a group that prefers selfish and degenerate play that's not the game's fault or the game's problem. You just have a bad group full of munchkins.


I have also never seen a successful "fighter in front, wizard in back" set up. Ever. In twenty five years. It's just as disingenuous to say you've never seen it so the whole Internet must be wrog as it is to say that you're wrong because the Internet has seen it. We are talking possibilities. The rules could be right enough that no one, ever, gets screwed in this way. But they aren't. So mathematically, someone will get screwed, guaranteed. That is a guaranteed screw that need never happen. That's worth objecting to.

The only games where I've not seen it are where the PCs are evil or completely self-involved. In other words, exactly not how the game tells you that you should be playing (in any edition). Obviously, you can play the game however you want, but if you do and run into problems, again, it's kind of your own fault. The game is built and balanced with certain assumptions in mind, and one of them is that the players will work together. At some point you're not playing the game the way it was designed, and you're just going to experience a lot of problems because of that.


Not so; the base rules are not, cannot, be small. The base system must be the thing from which all thigs derive. You need something that can fractalate; more complex systems must be contained within the larger base. Bolting complexity onto a simple base causes problems; granularity comparison issues, power creep issues, verisimilitude issues, accidental game break combinations...
The key is to be abstract. An abstract system can handle a lot of strain. D&D is currently bad at abstract.

I wouldn't say that. D&D is very abstract at it's core.

D&D is roll d20, add a modifier, and compare it to a set or rolled target number. That's the basic rule of D&D that's been described about that tersely in PHB chapter 1 in 3e, 4e, and now 5e. That one mechanic becomes skills, spell and reaction saves, attacks of all kinds, etc. Any time you want to do anything, it's this same mechanic at the core.

Ability scores literally only exist to provide modifiers for d20 rolls. Clases and backgrouds only exist to provide different methods (features and skills) where d20 rolls can occur and, again, to provide different modifiers. Encounters, whether they're combat or non-combat, provide the context in which d20 rolls are made.

Ultimately, I think the issue is that the Basic Fighter (aka Champion) is not and never will be intended for nuanced, detailed combat options. Basic D&D Combat itself is not intended for nuanced, detailed combat of any kind. Basic is intended to introduce new players to the edition, especially new to D&D players. Having a simple, straightforward, class whose most obvious action is probably the most effective one it can do is of unimaginable value. It is more valuable to the game to attract and keep new players than it is for the Basic Fighter to scratch the itch of players who can't get enough tactical options.

[Fwiffo86]

The tier system is a measure of potential power for a caster, and (IMO) a commonly observed power for martials. That, IMO, makes it fundamentally flawed. In generally it assumes casters always have the right spell prepared because they change them every day (because they might), while martials will always suffer from encounters where they can't contribute (because they might not). That's not a fair representation, IMO. I'm not saying it's wrong (and I won't be responding to any tier dogma defenders) and casters are very overpowering in 3.x, but it paints a very biased picture where casters get evaluated at their best and martials get evaluated at their average.


Would the grading system stand when you assume that casters only have the right spell 50% of the time? Or maybe 75% of the time?

There is some math for you...

Has the right spell prepared: 50%
Chance of Save throw resist: 20%
etc etc etc.

If I cared about the Tier system even a little bit, I might muster up the ambition to actually run those numbers. But its all just observation anyway.

[Tholomyes]

This is actually an incorrect comparison.

Everyone in D&D relies on Magic. Period.

What does this mean? It means the three basic archetypes in D&D are those who are skillful and strong and will use what magic is available to them in the environment (martial characters), those who will forsake their strength in the search of constant magic (wizards) and those who make deals, recieving magical support most of the time in exchange for giving their skill and strength to a cause (clerics).

The use that captain America doesn't use magic and Thor does is patently false. Everyone gets magic. Your character choice is about whether the magic is inherent or transient. The difference is whether that magic can be taken away or not, and what the costs of that choice are.


So really, the key here is to balance magic against magic items. Somethig 3e may be able to successfully do, with the right mindset.I'm confused as to how you can try to say my opinion on how I'd prefer my games to play is wrong. True, D&D as written has everyone dependant on magic, be it through items or through magic. It's one of the reasons I dislike all editions of D&D.

I don't want my fighter to only be effective because of the magic items she wields, but rather I want her to be effective on her own, and have the magic items, at most, complement the character's natural ability. 4e kind of did that (though there was still a bit too much of a focus on magic items, but at least everyone had to focus on them about equally, and they eventually came up with rules to more easily rid the game of the necessity of the magic-item treadmill), but I'd much rather see an edition where Fighters are interesting without relying on picking up a +2 Flaming Burst sword, or what have you.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want this. I see no reason why the only characters whose ability to be interesting is inherent to them have to have some sort of magic associated with them. In such a game, what is even the point of having non-magical characters when they have to rely on magic anyway? Moreover, why should I feel like a Big Damn Hero, when the only interesting part of my character, mechanically, is her stuff? Hell, even for the Iron Man example, the suit is at least something he made (in a cave, with a box of scraps), not something he just found or looted off the corpse of an enemy.

[captpike]

Sadly honoring sacred cows appear to be in their best interest. Not honoring these specific sacred cows and trying something new is what had them trying to do this in the first place (even if I did like them trying something new in 4e).

its not like 4e was anything but a huge success.

nor is it a good idea to pander to only the most loud of those who like the game of two and three editions ago.

[MeeposFire]

I expect some of this apparent reactionary ferver will fade shortly into the system's life. While Mearls doesn't always have the best grasp on system math, and while he's made some decisions I disagree with, I don't think he (or the rest of the design team) are stupid. One thing they need to do, is rebuild their player base, and try to get back players who since went off to retroclones and Pathfinder, as well as attract new fans. This all speaks to honoring certain sacred cows, especially when getting rid of them would complicate the game for new players. However systemic problems that the game has had since OD&D or AD&D or 3e or whenever have you don't just vanish by putting a fresh coat of paint on it, and they know this. That is why there exist subclasses, so they can give themselves an out on matters like complex fighters, and the like. The base game must allow for simple, sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have room for complexity. I suspect we'll see future Supplements which expand the battlemaster's options of Manuevers, and we're almost certain to see more feats, and likely subclasses which expand complexity further. Plus, we have no idea if the DMG will make good on their promise of Modularity. Many people are writing off Modularity, without any evidence that it does not exist. While I admit, I feel am giving perhaps too much credit to Mearls et al, and even I feel I am being a bit overly optimistic, I also feel that we have very little information with which to make informed decisions about the system for the future.

As you appear to be a fan of 4e, I'm sure you can acknowledge that the PHB launch, though significantly more complex than the 5e we've seen glimpses of, would have also shown much cause for concern. It lacked many core races and classes, such as Half-Orc, Bard, Barbarian, ect, and had less than exemplary customization options. Frequently your choice between powers would be slim, as your chosen style would make some options not viable. An archery ranger, for example, might find herself at a choice of powers, where only a couple are even usable for archers, never mind effective. However quickly options were released with PHB 2 and [Source] Power books, and the like, which broadened options considerably.

In systems such as D&D, I rarely think the PHB launch is a good measure of the system, going forward. We have some information on the core launch, but very little on how they will support it, or what the DMG will provide, in terms of allowing for greater complexity. We just don't know, so I feel uncomfortable making judgements right away, on the system.

Actually I am a fan of all editions (except DMing 3e since that requires more effort to succeed than the others to get the same level of fun for me but I will PLAY that edition and it can be my favorite for the art of building characters) what I am really trying to point out is that some of these rules are being used to support some old sacred cows. Some of them are cows that I liked before so it is not a complete complaint. I am saying it is sad because they are keeping them not because they are for the best of the game itself but to try to placate a group to try to get them back to playing this particular game. I understand the reason and I understand it is in their best interest I just wish that wasn't the reason they had to do it. As for why I am referencing 4e so much is that it is the edition with the most obvious differences in design so often it becomes a good reference point. It helps that I like many of the changes but there are many things I would do differently if the choice was mine (for one I think that weapon powers should have been based around basic attacks with the same effects added on to the basic attack rather than being 100% separate powers).

I for one am not worried about the lack of material currently. WotC more than anybody knows that they are going to make lots of books with lots of new options and they know how to milk those things. In 3e it became feats, prestige classes, and eventually full on classes that they used to sell lots of books. In 4e it was powers, paragon paths, and new classes. 2e AD&D found that kits were a big seller. In this edition it may very well be subclasses and other ideas that they use to sell books.

[Fwiffo86]

its not like 4e was anything but a huge success.

Lol



nor is it a good idea to pander to only the most loud of those who like the game of two and three editions ago

Nor is it a good idea to base opinions on one addition alone

[MeeposFire]

The tier system is a measure of potential power for a caster, and (IMO) a commonly observed power for martials. That, IMO, makes it fundamentally flawed. In generally it assumes casters always have the right spell prepared because they change them every day (because they might), while martials will always suffer from encounters where they can't contribute (because they might not). That's not a fair representation, IMO. I'm not saying it's wrong (and I won't be responding to any tier dogma defenders) and casters are very overpowering in 3.x, but it paints a very biased picture where casters get evaluated at their best and martials get evaluated at their average.

The problem with the tier system is that it presents a false composition. Not all Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are tier 1. In our games, most are tier 3 or low tier 2. Most clerics are forced to be low tier 3 because we have 8 players and for some reason there's almost never more than one cleric (to my unending frustration). Depending on the player, I've seen some tier 4 casters. We have one player who between his play style and poor dice rolling will regardless of class always play a tier 5 character (yes, even casters).

I, for one, have seen one tier 1 character in actual play (an Artificer made on a bet with the DM to demonstrate that the class and item creation was overpowered), and only a handful of characters played as tier 2 at level 13+. Our caster players don't want to be walking Gods because either the DM will kill you, the table will make you change your character ("Dude, your character is lame and spoiling the campaign. Dial it back."), or you'll be bored to death. Scry & die never works more than once in a blue moon because the DM will just do it back to us and he's got more resources and better coordination. Yes, the DM has to be fair, but as we've all heard, turnabout is fair play.

Additionally, because the tier system "grades" classes, people mistake the game as a competition and mistake each tier as, well, strict tiers indicating quality of play. "Wizard? That's tier 1! I better play at least tier 3 or I won't be able to have any fun!" That's just not the reality that I've seen, and not a reality that's useful for describing an effective party.



You are actually referencing the tier system incorrectly. You are referencing on how people use the idea but are not actually referencing what it actually is supposed to mean.

The tier system does not assume that you have a specific spell at all. Nor does it try to use any specific build (the few "build" like things you see in there are class variants where they are different enough to be worth mentioning their different tier level). Such concepts are too specific for what the tier system tries to accomplish. Further when a class is assigned to a tier it is not doe with any specific level of optimization at all.

The tier listing uses the idea that when you compare the classes you are comparing them under the same basic level of optimization. A wizard with terrible spell choices is pretty bad but if you compare them to a fighter with equally terrible feat choices (say taking weapon focus for 10 different weapons or something at a similar level of terribleness) that wizard may still look pretty good. Taking that into account and their upper and lower limits the tier listing does a fair job of comparing what classes can do relative to each other. Due to this a wizard is NEVER tier 4 it is always tier 1. That does not mean you are playing it to its full potential (chances are most players will never even try) and a specific player may make one that is worse than your tier 5 fighter but those are specific builds and the tier system isn't really made for that.

Also nowhere in the tier system does JaronK (at least in his system I should say) say anything about any specific tier is better for you to play. Any tier is fine to play his only comment was that if you have characters of widely different tiers of similar OP strength together in the same party (think god wizard with essentially any kind of fighter) the lower tier character will probably feel overshadowed a bit. Any attempt to say that the tiers are saying that 1 is better to play than any other number is just a bias of the person stating it and not the system itself. As I recall JaronK (one of the more common referenced posters that wrote a tier system) prefers playing with tier 3-4 range character types.

Yes many people here do make the tiers into a sort of competition but that is because we are all dumb :smallwink: and do that to ourselves. It is not the actual doing of the tier system.

[Fwiffo86]

I have never seen the tier system used in any other way than to make optimization decisions. You can understand my loathing to it

[MeeposFire]

I have never seen the tier system used in any other way than to make optimization decisions. You can understand my loathing to it

Yes people tend to use it for things it is not really intended and we also tend to use it to mean something it doesn't but we get the idea anyway.

For instance one might say "this is a tier 4 wizard" but that isn't really how it works. The wizard is still a tier one class but the build that has been used in such a way that it could be fielded with a group of tier 4 classes and it would still fit. We get the idea across using the tier system even if that isn't how it was designed to be used. Essentially the concept has been amde to be more versatile than designed for better and for worse on these boards.

[Pex]

Correct, it's a method of quantifying classes in a way that allows a lot of understanding to be communicated in very few words. Anyone who says that you're doing it wrong if you're not Tier 1 3 is more or less a troll, whether they intend to be or not.

Fixed that for you. I've read way too many posts of people bashing spellcasters as too powerful (this thread even) and demand the ban hammer for how dare players have such power (not this thread).

[da_chicken]

You are actually referencing the tier system incorrectly. You are referencing on how people use the idea but are not actually referencing what it actually is supposed to mean.

If there's one thing that the 3.x philosophy teaches us, it's that author intent means very little in the face of what something is used for. I choose to judge most things based on how they're used, not how the inventor/author/designer meant for them to be used. If you wish, you may choose to read my criticisms as a mark against how the tier system is actually used, rather the tier system itself.

[MeeposFire]

Fixed that for you. I've read way too many posts of people bashing spellcasters as too powerful (this thread even) and demand the ban hammer for how dare players have such power (not this thread).

Well that should be obvious the maligned are usually the ones that complain not the ones sitting pretty on top. Most often those playing things that have a lot of power do not complain about having so much power and usually don't mind all that much that others are weaker than them (heck they may not even realize at the time or they might enjoy that). However those that have been left behind tend to notice it and get upset.

There is also the issue of the golden mean and how tier 3 being so in the middle means it works with many classes that fit almost all archetypes since they more easily play well with tier 2 and tier 4s which gives a lot of options. The closer to the edges you get the harder it is to work with since you do not get as much flexibility of what you can easily work with.


Lastly tiers 1-2 are partly defined by how they can casually break the game if they so choose and that is not normally considered a good thing globally (though it may not bother you).

[captpike]

Lol

you do know that using only book sales as a reference 4e made at least as much money as 3e right? and DDI made millions more?

if you do not I suggest you stop only listening to those who hate 4e and want to find reasons to bash it because they know logic and reason will not work.



Nor is it a good idea to base opinions on one addition alone

no I never said they should, but when you actively ignore the latest and very successful edition entirely, and instead try and only try to get people back who left during 2e and 3e it just makes no sense.

the goal should be to make the best game possible to fit the (very very large) niche that D&D sits in, if they can put in the cows sure they should, but if it hurts the game in any way they should throw them out.

there is little reason to have a new edition if your not willing to try new things, and throw out the systems that have been shown not to work well.

[Arzanyos]

Which systems, might I ask, have been shown not to work well?

[Fwiffo86]

you do know that using only book sales as a reference 4e made at least as much money as 3e right? and DDI made millions more?

if you do not I suggest you stop only listening to those who hate 4e and want to find reasons to bash it because they know logic and reason will not work.



no I never said they should, but when you actively ignore the latest and very successful edition entirely, and instead try and only try to get people back who left during 2e and 3e it just makes no sense.

the goal should be to make the best game possible to fit the (very very large) niche that D&D sits in, if they can put in the cows sure they should, but if it hurts the game in any way they should throw them out.

there is little reason to have a new edition if your not willing to try new things, and throw out the systems that have been shown not to work well.

I have a grand idea, lets do some theoretical math shall we?

Lets assume that the various editions of D&D have all cost the exact same regardless of the time frame that they come from. So 10 bucks in 1981 = 10 bucks in 2014. Now lets total up all the books from each addition. Then lets compare what sold more? (Basic)+(1e)+(2e)+(3e)+(3.5e) against (4e). Which has more materials to purchase? I'm betting it isn't 4e. As you cling to your "sacred cow" of 4e and consistently seem to think is superior ONLY because it sold X amount of materials, you continuously ignore how many materials of all other editions have sold. Why you choose to pick materials sold as your yard stick for measuring the actual success of a product is beyond me. Given that a product bought and stored in the basement is not really a success now is it? It's just a product sold. Basically I am saying is Just because it sold a book does NOT mean it was a success. It only means it sold a book.

I'm also willing to be that your 4e fan base includes people who are fans of other additions as well, even if they don't make up the majority as you are usually willing to argue. That is your argument right? That there are more fans of 4e than there could possibly be of all the other additions? Despite existing for 30 years before 4e. And that because 4e has such superior numbers that 5e should be built to include, and possibly cater to those fans; because the large fan base of previous editions doesn't actually matter that much (as you have stated before, See any post where you rank fans by order of "importance").

And to address your 4e comment. I don't have any opinion of 4e. I have heard good things, and I have heard bad things. I have never played it. I did read through the PHB, didn't like they way it no longer felt like D&D to me (My own personal opinion) and left it alone.

I have a problem with your inability to judge anything without using 4e as your baseline. I have a problem with your belief that 4e is superior because everything is balanced (theoretically). I have a problem with your belief that (X) number of 4e books sold equals success. And I have a problem with your complete disregard for any opinion other than your own. Especially when it comes to someone pointing out to you that 4e WAS D&D trying new things, and obviously someone either thought that was the wrong way to go, or they were unhappy with its progress.

Which given your normal response routine will mean that you will choose things in this post, take them out of context, assume I am talking about something I am not, and develop a tangent never intended to exist. Which is perfectly fine. Go ahead.

[MeeposFire]

Which systems, might I ask, have been shown not to work well?

That would be a question that ends up being very personal and I don't think you will find broad consensus on most things. But as one example 1e initiative is generally considered to be more a hassle than a benefit.

[da_chicken]

I think there's design space for class-agnostic build features. However, I think feats - as they exist in D&D - don't adequately fill that space.

The general problems are...

(1) Feats are used for everything that's class-agnostic. It's a grab bag - the "Miscellaneous" category that has outgrown your filing system. Learning a language or a skill costs a feat. A special maneuver with a weapon costs a feat. Being awesome with armor costs a feat. A bonus on a class of saving throws costs a feat. It's a tremendous hodge-podge of stuff, mixing together combat, non-combat; bonuses, and new options.
(2) The value of feats are set at "1 feat." This is fine for simplicity, but it doesn't bear out in practice on account of the first issue.
(3) Feats are poorly organized, and quickly bloat beyond reasonable limits given the open design space. Just like with "spells" I tend to think this is an inherent problem with the design, rather than a problem with bloat itself. Bloat is inevitable given this setup.
ed:
(4) They often turn into class features, which is terrible. Getting more feats isn't a class feature, it's just more of what everyone gets. If your class design relies on feats, it's mingling together class-based and class-agnostic features. I can go into this more later, but it's part of why I think the 3e (and 5e) Fighters are so unsatisfying. "More of what everyone gets" isn't a real class feature; it's a cop-out for a class-based game.

How can you fix it? A few ways I can think of.
* You could better-define Feats, or else categorize them into combat vs. noncombat. Otherwise, you're weighing the value of "Resist 3 All" vs. "Know 3 more languages." The latter may be legitimately useful in some campaigns but legitimately useless in others, so they shouldn't compete for the same generic resource.
* Give every feat both combat and non-combat applications
* Tie feats closer to the class structure, like they are in 13th Age, where they are no longer class-agnostic, by and large; they are enhancements to your race or class.
* Organize them in a much smaller number of chains, like you'd find in many CRPGs nowadays. That way, you're not picking from 200 feats; you're picking one of maybe 10 each time, then improving them. This also allows you to effectively set variable costs.
* You should never have to decide between "effective" and "interesting." When given a choice, players tend to go with boring passive bonuses. These boring static bonuses should just be incorporated into the class progressions and just taken as a given, and thus be largely removed from the "feat" design space - which can then be leveraged for more interesting stuff.

e: Also, in both 1e and 4e I've seen successful "Fighter up front, Wizard in back" setups. In 1e, it's largely a result of dungeon environs where corridors made it possible. In 4e, it's because the Fighter's a very well-designed class, and that's how the game works.

Thanks for this, obryn. I still don't dislike feats, but I do agree that the general problems you list are all accurate and well-reasoned criticisms.

I think the whole class Path system (I do hate the term "subclass" for some reason) potentially stands to be much more appealing than feats, since those features can potentially be a lot more powerful (only one class can get them), a lot more interesting, and much more transformative than a feat really can be. That makes me wish that WotC had invested more time in additional paths or paths with more features (or just plain more Class features).

Hm. Ok, so, from a design perspective, both Ability Score Increase and Class Path features are shapeable by the player. I wonder if it's feasible to replace some of the higher level ASIs with Path Features in classes that are ASI-heavy (basically: Fighter). I don't think you want to replace ASIs at 4/8/12/16/19 which seem to be bog standard (all 5 classes we've seen have them, and they're at level/4, with the one at 19 making room for a more impressive capstone at 20), but that means the ASI at Fighter 6 and Fighter 14 could (or, I suppose you would argue, should) be Path features (or outright Class features). Of course that means Rogue 10 is a blank Class/Path feature, too. Hm.

As I said above, I still like feats, but I see what you're saying now.

[obryn]

Thanks for this, obryn. I still don't dislike feats, but I do agree that the general problems you list are all accurate and well-reasoned criticisms.
Thanks! I try. :smallsmile:

I agree that paths/subclasses/whatevs can - and should - fill a role which had been previously relegated to feats. That's a good thing.

I also think it's important I mention that, so far, I hate 5e feats the least of all D&D feats, so far. :smallsmile: Part of that is how great it is that they're pushed back a few levels and less dominant in the advancement structure. Partly, it's because so far feats seem to be pretty important; there's no "prone shooters" or "astral flares" (yet). But overall, I still think they occupy the same confused design space they've occupied since 2000.

[captpike]

I have a grand idea, lets do some theoretical math shall we?

Lets assume that the various editions of D&D have all cost the exact same regardless of the time frame that they come from. So 10 bucks in 1981 = 10 bucks in 2014. Now lets total up all the books from each addition. Then lets compare what sold more? (Basic)+(1e)+(2e)+(3e)+(3.5e) against (4e). Which has more materials to purchase? I'm betting it isn't 4e. As you cling to your "sacred cow" of 4e and consistently seem to think is superior ONLY because it sold X amount of materials, you continuously ignore how many materials of all other editions have sold. Why you choose to pick materials sold as your yard stick for measuring the actual success of a product is beyond me. Given that a product bought and stored in the basement is not really a success now is it? It's just a product sold. Basically I am saying is Just because it sold a book does NOT mean it was a success. It only means it sold a book.

I'm also willing to be that your 4e fan base includes people who are fans of other additions as well, even if they don't make up the majority as you are usually willing to argue. That is your argument right? That there are more fans of 4e than there could possibly be of all the other additions? Despite existing for 30 years before 4e. And that because 4e has such superior numbers that 5e should be built to include, and possibly cater to those fans; because the large fan base of previous editions doesn't actually matter that much (as you have stated before, See any post where you rank fans by order of "importance").

And to address your 4e comment. I don't have any opinion of 4e. I have heard good things, and I have heard bad things. I have never played it. I did read through the PHB, didn't like they way it no longer felt like D&D to me (My own personal opinion) and left it alone.

I have a problem with your inability to judge anything without using 4e as your baseline. I have a problem with your belief that 4e is superior because everything is balanced (theoretically). I have a problem with your belief that (X) number of 4e books sold equals success. And I have a problem with your complete disregard for any opinion other than your own. Especially when it comes to someone pointing out to you that 4e WAS D&D trying new things, and obviously someone either thought that was the wrong way to go, or they were unhappy with its progress.

Which given your normal response routine will mean that you will choose things in this post, take them out of context, assume I am talking about something I am not, and develop a tangent never intended to exist. Which is perfectly fine. Go ahead.

if your going to insult me please don't just pull thing out of your ass, use what I call "facts", you have probably heard of them in school, even if you rarely use them yourself.

I change my opinion on things the only way that is rational, only after I see either facts or logic that changes them. I don't change them because someone else disagrees, regardless of who they are.

I agree using sold books is a inefficient metric at best, but I have yet to hear of a better one that is not "what me and my friends think" or a poll that is so bias that it gives no useful data (like putting it on a site that caters to one edition, and hardly has anyone who likes the others, let alone has a way to know if the people on the site are a good sample)
tell me another way to make an impartial judgement on the popularity and I will listen.

I have never said 4e has more fans then 3e, I think that is the case but I can't know that for sure. however there is no doubt that there are more then enough to justify them as a very important (probably the second most important) fanbase.
also more then a few people were fans of older editions now play 4e because it is different, because it fixed the huge holes the system had. they would no more go back to 3e then you would go back to using dial up.

I use 4e as my baseline first because I know it the best. second because its the latest edition, why would you pick a random edition to judge it by when you can use the last one? see if the new game did improve on it or did not. see it they learned from their mistakes or did not.

also why do you assume Wotc is only doing what is best? that because someone at the company made a decision its the best one to make? they are just people, people who have a bad track record for the last few years.

[captpike]

Which systems, might I ask, have been shown not to work well?

in 5e and 3e? the basic spell system does not work well. even were the spells perfectly balanced that balance would require a set number of rounds per day, and would hardly work even then.
too few and the wizard can use all their dailies spells in one go and win every fight. too many and the wizard runs and is at a much lower power level then they were ever intended to be at. even if you do stay at the rounds/day the system was made for the wizard will outshine the fighter because all the important fights will be won by the wizard, while the fighter will only be allow to do those fights that are not worth the time of the wizard.

[Arzanyos]

Dude, we have done this so many times already. The wizard can't just wave his hand an end an encounter like in 3e. Sleep is still a bomb in low levels, though. But, all these broken encounter ending spells that obsolete the fighter are just phantoms as of now. They may come, but they are not here right now.

[Sartharina]

How can you fix it? A few ways I can think of.
[quote]* You could better-define Feats, or else categorize them into combat vs. noncombat. Otherwise, you're weighing the value of "Resist 3 All" vs. "Know 3 more languages." The latter may be legitimately useful in some campaigns but legitimately useless in others, so they shouldn't compete for the same generic resource.I can sort of agree with this, maybe. I could see how 4e could have been improved by having Combat Feats and Utility Feats separated, with a requirement of 3 of each per tier. Something I find myself doing anyway in 4e when Essential Houserules are in place (removing the two biggest feat taxes) is grabbing the three or four feats of each tier most useful to my combat ability, and two or three noncombat/utility feats I like for flavor.

* Give every feat both combat and non-combat applications I can agree with this, I think, especially as the approach 5e should have taken.

* Tie feats closer to the class structure, like they are in 13th Age, where they are no longer class-agnostic, by and large; they are enhancements to your race or class.No thanks. That's for class features, not feats. I like 5e and 4e's handling of feats far more than trying to use them as modular class features, allowing a character concept to span or transcend classes. Such as swordmages, arcane archers, skirmisher fighters, spellswords, spell snipers... or just give expanded utility in the other two branches of adventure.

* Organize them in a much smaller number of chains, like you'd find in many CRPGs nowadays. That way, you're not picking from 200 feats; you're picking one of maybe 10 each time, then improving them. This also allows you to effectively set variable costs.OH HELL NO! The worst part of 3e was the feat chains. Of course, part of that may be from the mixed space issue, but I hated how I had to pay for ****ty little effects in 3e to get to the ones I needed (Point Blank Shot, I want you to die in a fire and take the ******* that decided every archery feat should be tied to you with you!), and every feat selection had to be paid for in advance. My favorite part of 4e is the ability to grab almost any six feats I want from any tier without having to worry about what other feats I've grabbed, with the exception of a few feat chains that usually synergize well together or don't require significant investment (Such as chains with two Heroic and one Paragon feat or so)

* You should never have to decide between "effective" and "interesting." When given a choice, players tend to go with boring passive bonuses. These boring static bonuses should just be incorporated into the class progressions and just taken as a given, and thus be largely removed from the "feat" design space - which can then be leveraged for more interesting stuff.I can sort of get behind this. The weapon focus/specialization chain from 3e should have been a class feature, at any rate. And, 4e's infamous Improved Defenses and Weapon Expertise feats needed to be baked into the classes much better instead of competing for space with Long Jumper and Butcher's Lure.

[captpike]

Dude, we have done this so many times already. The wizard can't just wave his hand an end an encounter like in 3e. Sleep is still a bomb in low levels, though. But, all these broken encounter ending spells that obsolete the fighter are just phantoms as of now. They may come, but they are not here right now.

were NO spells that ended encounters to exist sure you might have a point but they do. sleep and web exist, it is unreasonable to not expect more to be in the PHB.
although honestly one is one too many.

not to mention the damage spells that could easily outdamage the fighter with just one use in an encounter.

[Sartharina]

were NO spells that ended encounters to exist sure you might have a point but they do. sleep and web exist, it is unreasonable to not expect more to be in the PHB.
although honestly one is one too many.Sleep is a few d6 of fake damage that can be completely negated by failing to TPK the enemy team. Web is strong, but is worthless without anyone to clean up the mess (Which wizards lack the strength to do), doesn't leave the targets helpless, and can be quickly countered - especially if the enemies don't fear a few d4 of fire damage.

In my games, the party rogue,cleric and fighter end encounters quickly as well, simply by killing the enemies. Single High-HP target? End it with a focus-fire of 1d8+3d6+9 points of damage. Multiple targets? Kill them with 1d6+3, 2d6, 1d6+3, 1d6+3, 1d8+2 points of damage distributed as necessary.


not to mention the damage spells that could easily outdamage the fighter with just one use in an encounter.The wizard is a Glass Cannon. The Fighter is a Stone Wall. The fighter doesn't have anywhere near the best damage output in the game, nor is he intended to. Instead, he has the best ratio of damage to survivability.

[The Mormegil]

Sleep is a few d6 of fake damage that can be completely negated by failing to TPK the enemy team. Web is strong, but is worthless without anyone to clean up the mess (Which wizards lack the strength to do), doesn't leave the targets helpless, and can be quickly countered - especially if the enemies don't fear a few d4 of fire damage.

In my games, the party rogue,cleric and fighter end encounters quickly as well, simply by killing the enemies. Single High-HP target? End it with a focus-fire of 1d8+3d6+9 points of damage. Multiple targets? Kill them with 1d6+3, 2d6, 1d6+3, 1d6+3, 1d8+2 points of damage distributed as necessary.

The wizard is a Glass Cannon. The Fighter is a Stone Wall. The fighter doesn't have anywhere near the best damage output in the game, nor is he intended to. Instead, he has the best ratio of damage to survivability.


I tend to think that playing mop-up is not fun. I also believe to be in the majority when I say this.

Even in 3.5 you totally benefit from having a fighter in your party. Sure, that fighter might as well be a bound demon, but someone to mop up effectively is definitely needed, and an optimized charger build can always be put to use. Problem is, it's not like he's more like a weapon and less like a character. "The wizard casts web & the fighter cleans up" is a bad encounter paradigm: the wizard has all the narrative power and the fighter only goes through the motion. This is due to how Vancian magic works (IMO: very badly).

Yet one more reason I don't like 5e I guess. And I guess it's one more reason due to traditionalism running rampant for no apparent reason.

[Callin]

Sleep caps out at 21d8 in Hit Points. Average is only 84. That is hardly enough to put to sleep an 8th level Fighter. So its quickly becomes a useless spell unless your DM wants to throw a Goblin Horde at you.

[1337 b4k4]

I agree using sold books is a inefficient metric at best, but I have yet to hear of a better one that is not "what me and my friends think" or a poll that is so bias that it gives no useful data (like putting it on a site that caters to one edition, and hardly has anyone who likes the others, let alone has a way to know if the people on the site are a good sample)
tell me another way to make an impartial judgement on the popularity and I will listen.


Well, one good metric for measuring success might be "what is it being replaced with?". For example, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that took 4e and improved or expanded on it, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was successful by WotC's standards. On the other hand, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that largely rolls back all the things 4e did and changed, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was not successful by WotC's standards. We can reach these conclusions because large companies (like Hasbro / WotC) are largely risk averse and tend not to make sweeping changes to their successful and winning formulas, and when they do make those sweeping changes, if those changes fail to live up to expectations, they get quickly rolled back.



also why do you assume Wotc is only doing what is best? that because someone at the company made a decision its the best one to make? they are just people, people who have a bad track record for the last few years.

I can't speak for the previous poster, but I'm not assuming they're only doing what's best. I'm assuming they're doing what they think will gain them the most money, since that's what companies tend to do. As I pointed out above, companies don't do sweeping changes lightly. Somewhere, someone looked at the money they were making with pre-4e D&D, and the money they were making with 4e D&D, and decided that they were likely to make more money with a new edition that was more like pre-4e D&D.

Then there's also the basic examination we can do on industry trends. The TTRPG industry is actually growing right now. Multiple indie games are taking hold or expanding (Burning Wheel / Mouseguard, Fiasco, Fate etc) and new entrants are making lots of money with old D&D (Pathfinder, the entire OSR movement). And with all of this activity, the best we can come up with for 4e is that "it made at least as much as its predecessor". Here's the problem, when your industry is growing, new entrants are making money, and your next biggest competitor is giving away your previous product for free and is still competing neck and neck with you for share and tables and the best you can say about your current product is "It's not doing worse than the last product that our competitors are still making money off of", you don't generally call that a success. Treading water (by corporate standards in a growth market) is not considered success.


were NO spells that ended encounters to exist sure you might have a point but they do. sleep and web exist, it is unreasonable to not expect more to be in the PHB.

and


I tend to think that playing mop-up is not fun. I also believe to be in the majority when I say this.
...
"The wizard casts web & the fighter cleans up" is a bad encounter paradigm: the wizard has all the narrative power and the fighter only goes through the motion. This is due to how Vancian magic works (IMO: very badly).

Frankly speaking, if all of your encounters are ending with a single Web or Sleep spell, you're running your encounters wrong. Sure, any one encounter might end that way, but why are all of your enemies always conveniently clustering together in one spot for the wizard to target? Why are they all fighting in small enclosed rooms with no space to maneuver? Why do they not have reinforcements and surprised and backups? And for that matter, why are your players always going up against an "appropriate" number of enemies?

Now I admit, this isn't all players / DMs fault. In WotC ignoring D&D history, one thing that fell by the wayside was massive outnumbering encounters. Old editions and old modules had rooms where you didn't encounter 5 goblins, you encountered 4d8 goblins. Or 20d4 kobolds. Beetles on ceilings, with lurkers above and gelatenous cubes in pit traps below. And the whole thing was made worse by 3e/4e's reliance on "the encounter" as a unit of measure. Dungeons aren't strings of connected but unrelated encounters, and monsters don't wait patiently in the next room for you to slaughter their companions next door, but that's exactly how 3e and 4e view encounters. Self contained boxes of challenge. D&D (and for that matter it's spell system) were not originally designed with that mindset, and issues with "wizards win all the time and fighters do cleanup" is a result of trying to mash incompatible systems and challenge design together.

Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of issues with what WotC has done with the D&D magic system that need to be cleaned up, but "wizards win all the encounters" is a DM failing. Set up your encounters correctly and your wizards will be helpful but not overpowering.

[obryn]

(stuff)
Yeah, it's not intended as a "do all these things" list; it's more of a "some of these changes might make feats better" list. :smallsmile:

[Fwiffo86]

if your going to insult me please don't just pull thing out of your ass, use what I call "facts", you have probably heard of them in school, even if you rarely use them yourself.


If you feel I insulted you, please list the statements I made that you feel are me targeting you in particular. As I recall, I attempted (maybe poorly) to target your ill conceived notions.



I agree using sold books is a inefficient metric at best, but I have yet to hear of a better one that is not "what me and my friends think" or a poll that is so bias that it gives no useful data (like putting it on a site that caters to one edition, and hardly has anyone who likes the others, let alone has a way to know if the people on the site are a good sample) tell me another way to make an impartial judgement on the popularity and I will listen.


Why are you bothering to defend something that you acknowledge is flawed?



I use 4e as my baseline first because I know it the best. second because its the latest edition, why would you pick a random edition to judge it by when you can use the last one? see if the new game did improve on it or did not. see it they learned from their mistakes or did not.


And this is my problem with you. You can't see past 4e. I am using the editions that 5e is most similar to (3.5 & 2e IMO), as a baseline. It is not similar to 4e, therefore using it as a baseline would be ill advised.

Additionally, you seem to voluntarily ignore all comments directed at you that state simply... If 4e was such a success, why didn't they use IT as the base for 5e? Could it possibly be that either the TOTAL fan base is in favor of a different type of game, or that your 4e fan base is not nearly as influential as you want to believe? See post quoted below that says the same thing.



Well, one good metric for measuring success might be "what is it being replaced with?". For example, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that took 4e and improved or expanded on it, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was successful by WotC's standards. On the other hand, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that largely rolls back all the things 4e did and changed, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was not successful by WotC's standards. We can reach these conclusions because large companies (like Hasbro / WotC) are largely risk averse and tend not to make sweeping changes to their successful and winning formulas, and when they do make those sweeping changes, if those changes fail to live up to expectations, they get quickly rolled back.

In plain English, your opinions are biased and you refuse to acknowledge other points of view. You are entitled to such a stance of course, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to listen. Noone has to listen to me either. I accept this. Just as I accept that what I state is nothing more than opinion. I don't claim to state facts.

[Morty]

Like with most things, I see feats as means to an end. If their end, that is to say, rounding off your character in a relatively unrestrained way, can be achieved through other means, they don't need to exist. But I think they might be the simplest way of achieving that - if done right. The trick, I think, is to make sure feats are really optional, not in the sense that you don't need to use the system at all (although that's not exactly impossible) but in the sense that you look at the feat list thinking "which of those nice additions do I want for my character" rather than "which of those do I need to make my character concept work". I'm not sure if it's possible, but that's the goal to shoot for.

[Fwiffo86]

I agree with Morty. But I also tend to think a too rigidly built concept is also bad for characters. Because if you have a concept that by its very nature requires "Feat A, B & C, Class 1 & 2, etc" you already have your character planned out to level 20, which means you have no room to grow in response to the game.

You can't plan on religious experiences that change your life decisions as an example. Sure, you can say... "I always wanted to be a part of the priesthood" but designing 20 levels of character before you get anywhere near them takes out the possibility your character will grow based on Roleplaying and Player decisions in game.

Feats, class features, classes, etc. should be flexible, but not overly so. A combat feat should not have out of combat uses. It should have an equally useful (notice I didn't say powerful) non-combat choice. Since the power of a feat is largely in the hands of the DM and not the player (meaning combat feats are only useful if you have combat, and the more you have, the more powerful the feat becomes) it is difficult to judge a feat based on its "math" alone.

[TrexPushups]

Wizard domination becomes less problematic when wandering monsters are a thing.

Fighters can get by with less beauty sleep and if the wizard truly needs the rest might even attempt to kill the early alarm clock without waking up the finger wigglers.

[obryn]

Wizard domination becomes less problematic when wandering monsters are a thing.

Fighters can get by with less beauty sleep and if the wizard truly needs the rest might even attempt to kill the early alarm clock without waking up the finger wigglers.
The 1 hour duration of a "short" rest - and the ease of interrupting them - means that wandering monsters are just as bad for Fighters.

If you can rest for an hour, you can often rest for 8 hours. I think that's the case in the Starter Set adventure.

[Morty]

I agree with Morty. But I also tend to think a too rigidly built concept is also bad for characters. Because if you have a concept that by its very nature requires "Feat A, B & C, Class 1 & 2, etc" you already have your character planned out to level 20, which means you have no room to grow in response to the game.


Not necessarily. It can also mean that the system doesn't support your concept without hoop jumping, which is the case with finesse fighters and crossbow users, just to name two in most editions of D&D.

[TrexPushups]

If a monster shows up 25% of the time for a short rests would it not statistically show up twice during an 8 hour rest?

[Fwiffo86]

Not necessarily. It can also mean that the system doesn't support your concept without hoop jumping, which is the case with finesse fighters and crossbow users, just to name two in most editions of D&D.

In 5e, I see no appreciable difference between a LR fighter and a Melee Fighter. Change focus from STR to DEX. Done. The LR fighter is simply sacrificing damage (STR bonus) to attack at Range. How does this concept require anything else? I'm guess I'm just not following it right.

[TrexPushups]

You don't have to give up damage as you can add your dex to ranged attack damage.

With the notable exception that melee has 2 class abilities to increase damage and generally has bigger damage dice on the weapon.

[Morty]

In 5e, I see no appreciable difference between a LR fighter and a Melee Fighter. Change focus from STR to DEX. Done. The LR fighter is simply sacrificing damage (STR bonus) to attack at Range. How does this concept require anything else? I'm guess I'm just not following it right.

Probably, because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about ranged fighters, I'm talking about crossbow users. Crossbows have been useless in all D&D editions save 4e, where rogues and artificers use them... but only because they can't use bows. So if you want a crossbow to be worth anything, you need to sink feats into it in 3e, and in feat-less editions I guess you're just out of luck. And because nobody in the 5e design team spent more than 15 minutes thinking about the weapons table in 5e, it's the same here. The same applies to non-rogues who want to use Weapon Finesse in 3e, although that, at least, 5e managed to fix. Took them long enough. Those are examples of concepts which are far too difficult than they should be and thus require feat taxes.

[Callin]

A Halfling Rogue can use a Light Crossbow to be able to deal 1d8 in damage instead of the d6 from Short Bow OR he could use a Hand Crossbow with a Shield to get more AC and still deal as much damage as if he was using a Short Bow. I wouldnt say Crossbows are useless in this edition at all. I think that they will have their Niche like always and be useful right from level 1.

[Fwiffo86]

A Halfling Rogue can use a Light Crossbow to be able to deal 1d8 in damage instead of the d6 from Short Bow OR he could use a Hand Crossbow with a Shield to get more AC and still deal as much damage as if he was using a Short Bow. I wouldnt say Crossbows are useless in this edition at all. I think that they will have their Niche like always and be useful right from level 1.

I don't know about the basic, and someone can certainly prove me wrong here, but last I knew, you could only fire a crossbow once per turn, no matter how many attacks you would normally have. This is only a concern to the fighter, as I think they are the only ones to get multiple attacks now correct?

[Morty]

Not really the point, here. The point is that in all editions of D&D so far that have feats, not counting 5e until the PHB comes out, carefully planning your feat often isn't min-maxing, but necessity. Especially in 3e.

[Callin]

I don't know about the basic, and someone can certainly prove me wrong here, but last I knew, you could only fire a crossbow once per turn, no matter how many attacks you would normally have. This is only a concern to the fighter, as I think they are the only ones to get multiple attacks now correct?

Yea it only really concerns the Fighter. It can be fired once per Action, Bonus Action and Reaction. So 3 times in a round if you can finagle it.

Edit- or 4 if you dip Fighter 2 (possibly)

[Merc_Kilsek]

Yea it only really concerns the Fighter. It can be fired once per Action, Bonus Action and Reaction. So 3 times in a round if you can finagle it.

Edit- or 4 if you dip Fighter 2 (possibly)

There will be a feat that ignores the loading quality (and a couple other perks) on hand and light crossbows if you are proficient.

[Callin]

Cool. As of this moment I dont plan on using Feats in my first 5th Game. Subject to change for later games though.

[PinkysBrain]

Fighters can get by with less beauty

The healbot can't though.

[Morty]

There will be a feat that ignores the loading quality (and a couple other perks) on hand and light crossbows if you are proficient.

I think this is the exact kind of feat that shouldn't be there. There's no reason not to take it if you want your character to be a proficient crossbow shooter (because you hate yourself or something). So it's not really optional, which feats should be.

[obryn]

I think this is the exact kind of feat that shouldn't be there. There's no reason not to take it if you want your character to be a proficient crossbow shooter (because you hate yourself or something). So it's not really optional, which feats should be.
Yeah, it's a classic feat formula.

Arbitrary Restriction ---> Feat to remove restriction

[Person_Man]

Its also worth mentioning that even through Feats are better then they were in previous editions, they don't appear to scale, and they're written knowing that players can get them at level 1 (with a Human). So when the Fighter gets more Ability Score Increases/Feats, this isn't a plus for the class, because the Fighter should be getting higher level class abilities instead. For example, there is no Feat that's remotely as useful/powerful as the Foresight spell, a major buff that lasts 8 hours and doesn't require Concentration.

This could be solved with splat books that have more powerful Feats with a minimum class level requirement. But this was a known issue with the 3.X Fighter, and it was never adequately addressed.

[pwykersotz]

Yeah, it's a classic feat formula.

Arbitrary Restriction ---> Feat to remove restriction

Yeah, this format blows. :smallannoyed:

[Merlin the Tuna]

Yeah, it's a classic feat formula.

Arbitrary Restriction ---> Feat to remove restrictionThe best part is when the restriction is so buried in the rules that you don't notice it until somebody gets the feat.

A friend of mine had a 3.0E Thief-Acrobat that ran into this. He picked the class because it sounded like a good fit for his character, not reading the features in much detail until he got them. When he did level up, most of the abilities took some form of "When balancing, retain your Dex bonus to AC" or "When climbing, move at your full speed instead of half!" Except that the entire group was already playing that way because they weren't aware of those restrictions. So as soon as he got the class features, everyone learned the "real" rule, making his character no better and everyone else's directly worse.

[da_chicken]

In 5e, I see no appreciable difference between a LR fighter and a Melee Fighter. Change focus from STR to DEX. Done. The LR fighter is simply sacrificing damage (STR bonus) to attack at Range. How does this concept require anything else? I'm guess I'm just not following it right.

Just a note, but bows add Dex mod to damage. All ranged weapons do. See Dexterity, p60 Basic.

[Sartharina]

If crossbows didn't have their restriction, there would be no reason to use a Bow. Crossbows are simple, higher-damaging, and longer range. Making them just as fast to fire as a bow makes bows worthless.

Historicallly, Crossbows were the weapons of the peasantry. Historically, English Longbowmen were superior to not only Crossbowmen, but also Musketeers. Why is a Fighter trying to use an inferior weapon when he has the training to take advantage of the superior one? The crossbow is for those who can't make multiple attacks per round or aren't proficient with bows. Frankly, crossbows being worse than bows is not a problem any more than Clubs being worse than warhammers and flails.

For fighters that feel they absolutely must use a crossbow, there is a feat for that which makes crossbows even more awesome to use in addition to removing the one minor penalty they have.

Of course, I kinda wish they had bumped heavy crossbow damage to 2d6 since it's a martial weapon now instead of Simple.

[obryn]

If crossbows didn't have their restriction, there would be no reason to use a Bow. Crossbows are simple, higher-damaging, and longer range. Making them just as fast to fire as a bow makes bows worthless.
You're getting recursive, though. Crossbows are higher-damaging and have a greater range because that's how they're set up in the rules, not how they work in reality (since there are no hit points in reality, and it's fair to say that getting shot with either would be bad). There's zero reason crossbows couldn't be lower-damaging and simple, following the model of other simple weapons in the list. There's even precedent for lower damage from 1e/2e.

[Morty]

If crossbows didn't have their restriction, there would be no reason to use a Bow. Crossbows are simple, higher-damaging, and longer range. Making them just as fast to fire as a bow makes bows worthless.

And right now, crossbows are worthless. Their advantage in damage is too tiny to make a difference. As it appears, 5e does the exact same thing 3e does with them - they do the same thing as bows, except their users have to spend more feats on it.


Historicallly, Crossbows were the weapons of the peasantry. Historically, English Longbowmen were superior to not only Crossbowmen, but also Musketeers. Why is a Fighter trying to use an inferior weapon when he has the training to take advantage of the superior one? The crossbow is for those who can't make multiple attacks per round or aren't proficient with bows. Frankly, crossbows being worse than bows is not a problem any more than Clubs being worse than warhammers and flails.

Selectively bringing "realistic" (big quote tags here) weapon use to a world where people parade around with greatswords strapped to their backs and use them to duel people with rapiers is kind of a risky proposition. Neither bows nor crossbows are the 'inferior' or 'superior' weapon - those words very rarely apply to reality outside of games. They're different weapons, used by different people against different enemies in different circumstances.


Of course, I kinda wish they had bumped heavy crossbow damage to 2d6 since it's a martial weapon now instead of Simple.

See above for nobody putting more than fifteen minutes' worth of thought into the weapon list.

Anyway, since we're getting sidetracked - the point is that there's no reason for a crossbow user not to take this feat. Which is why it's a bad feat, for the same reason Power Attack is a bad feat in 3.x.

[Fwiffo86]

And right now, crossbows are worthless. Their advantage in damage is too tiny to make a difference. As it appears, 5e does the exact same thing 3e does with them - they do the same thing as bows, except their users have to spend more feats on it.


I'm just pointing this out because its fun, not because I want to be nitpicky about things. But even a 5% increase makes a difference. The difference from d6 to d8 may be as high as 25% (I'm not figuring it out cause I'm lazy today). Which is significant IMO. After all, even 5% is very significant, unless you are ok with 5% of all airplane landings resulting in a crash.

Just thoughts. Not relevant to anything really.

[Person_Man]

The best part is when the restriction is so buried in the rules that you don't notice it until somebody gets the feat.

A friend of mine had a 3.0E Thief-Acrobat that ran into this. He picked the class because it sounded like a good fit for his character, not reading the features in much detail until he got them. When he did level up, most of the abilities took some form of "When balancing, retain your Dex bonus to AC" or "When climbing, move at your full speed instead of half!" Except that the entire group was already playing that way because they weren't aware of those restrictions. So as soon as he got the class features, everyone learned the "real" rule, making his character no better and everyone else's directly worse.

There's also a very simple solution to this problem. Don't include any restrictions in your game unless they're intuitive and universally applied. And as a rule, Feats/classes/etc don't remove restrictions, they make the class better at doing something.

In this case, a Thief-Acrobat could Climb at double speed, Jump twice as far, make a Balance check to resist any effect that would render them Prone or move them against their will (such as a Bull Rush), etc.

[Sartharina]

And right now, crossbows are worthless. Their advantage in damage is too tiny to make a difference. As it appears, 5e does the exact same thing 3e does with them - they do the same thing as bows, except their users have to spend more feats on it. What drawback? If you're not a fighter, you're not making multiple attacks per action anyway. The Crossbow shoots just as fast and even harder than a bow.


Anyway, since we're getting sidetracked - the point is that there's no reason for a crossbow user not to take this feat. Which is why it's a bad feat, for the same reason Power Attack is a bad feat in 3.x.No reason for a Crossbow user to not take the feat. But that excludes archers, knife-throwers, sword-users, shield-users, axemen, spell-slingers, etc, who have no interest in the feat. Yes, crossbow masters have that feat as a "Must Have" - that's Not A Problem, because it's NOT a Must-Have for people who only dabble in crossbows, or use different weapons entirely.

There MIGHT be a problem if it makes crossbows the only viable long-range weapon style... but I'm not seeing that happening.

Power Attack was a bad feat in 3.X because it was Weapon Agnostic. Greataxe users benefitted from it just as much as polearm warriors. In Pathfinder, it was mandatory for all melee weapon users, one- and two-handed alike. It was also bad because it outclassed all other melee attack options, making two-handed attacks the only viable option for combat in 3.X.

[Morty]

No reason for a Crossbow user to not take the feat. But that excludes archers, knife-throwers, sword-users, shield-users, axemen, spell-slingers, etc, who have no interest in the feat. Yes, crossbow masters have that feat as a "Must Have" - that's Not A Problem, because it's NOT a Must-Have for people who only dabble in crossbows, or use different weapons entirely.

Let me put it this way, putting the whole crossbow quality debate aside. Being proficient at your chosen weapon is something you should get from levels in a class that has weapon use as part of its skill-set. The feat we're discussing is basically the exact opposite to what I think feats should do. A wizard or cleric picking up a feat to be able to hit the broad side of the barn with a crossbow, or maybe a bow - that might be worth a feat, because it's not something they normally do. Or a fighter whose class feature choices specialize her in some other weapon picking a feat to expand her repertoire. But you should not have to take feats related to your core competence.


Power Attack was a bad feat in 3.X because it was Weapon Agnostic. Greataxe users benefitted from it just as much as polearm warriors. In Pathfinder, it was mandatory for all melee weapon users, one- and two-handed alike. It was also bad because it outclassed all other melee attack options, making two-handed attacks the only viable option for combat in 3.X.

Yes, it was mandatory, which is the whole point. 90% of melee fighters needed to have it, or some way of compensating for not having it.

[Tholomyes]

My feeling on Crossbows is that trying to add feats which removes the loading property is just the dullest way of doing it. If you have two fighters, and one chooses to specialize in crossbows and one tries to specialize in Bows, they should be roughly equally effective, but play distinctly. The bow user would be, as normal, more specialized in multiple attacks, and the Crossbow user would be able to sacrifice additional attacks to concentrate on a single big attack (which could be more damage, or possibly if they wanted to push the envelop some, they could add some non-damaging effects) and possibly make them more suited to readied attack actions. But it should result in the crossbow wielder feeling like a distinct fighting style, rather than just a less effective bow user.

[da_chicken]

And right now, crossbows are worthless.

Actually, crossbows are directly superior for any class that doesn't get the Extra Attack class feature. Loading says "you can fire only once when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire". Since the only class that gets Extra Attack is Fighter, that makes crossbows the best ranged weapons for Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards (cantrips notwithstanding). Rogues can even use hand crossbows with TWF (unless TWF limits itself to melee attacks?). Indeed, [I]anybody can use a handcrossbow with TWF equally effectively.

Why use a crossbow? More like why use a shortbow?

[Merc_Kilsek]

Actually, crossbows are directly superior for any class that doesn't get the Extra Attack class feature. Loading says "you can fire only once when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire". Since the only class that gets Extra Attack is Fighter, that makes crossbows the best ranged weapons for Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards (cantrips notwithstanding). Rogues can even use hand crossbows with TWF (unless TWF limits itself to melee attacks?). Indeed, [I]anybody can use a handcrossbow with TWF equally effectively.

Why use a crossbow? More like why use a shortbow?

A couple of the classes paths allow extra attacks (i.e. Bard with the College of Valor) but you are basically correct over all. It's not common place in the classes.

Two-weapon Fighting does say melee. Personally I ignore that when it comes to my campaign outside of the play testing I did. So with that thought you can dual wield hand crossbows as they are light weapons, or toss a couple daggers, etc

[Tholomyes]

Actually, crossbows are directly superior for any class that doesn't get the Extra Attack class feature. Loading says "you can fire only once when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire". Since the only class that gets Extra Attack is Fighter, that makes crossbows the best ranged weapons for Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards (cantrips notwithstanding). Rogues can even use hand crossbows with TWF (unless TWF limits itself to melee attacks?). Indeed, [I]anybody can use a handcrossbow with TWF equally effectively.

Why use a crossbow? More like why use a shortbow?Not going to disagree with the rest of the post, but unless they've changed it from the basic rules, TWF is limited to melee weapons and thrown weapons. So, unless something changes, no TWF with hand crossbows.

EDIT: Ninja'd...

[da_chicken]

A couple of the classes paths allow extra attacks (i.e. Bard with the College of Valor) but you are basically correct over all. It's not common place in the classes.

Well, if they're like haste and grant a special action that can only be used for attacks, then I interpret it to mean you could fire a crossbow during them (once). If, instead, they modify how the Attack action functions like Extra Attack does, then that's another story.


Two-weapon Fighting does say melee. Personally I ignore that when it comes to my campaign outside of the play testing I did. So with that thought you can dual wield hand crossbows as they are light weapons, or toss a couple daggers, etc

The rules explicitly cover thrown weapons. You can explicitly use thrown weapons as part of TWF.

I don't see any reason not to include hand crossbows, however. They're the only one-handed light ranged weapons in the game, and I rather like the style of a short blade and pistol or John Woo style akimbo. Sure, you get double range over a handaxe, and I guess you can sneak attack with it, but it's not that much of an advantage. It's fun and cool and a bit silly.

Actually, what the hell? Why would hand crossbow even have the Light property if you couldn't use it with TWF? That's all the Light property does! That seems like a bug.

[Morty]

Actually, what the hell? Why would hand crossbow even have the Light property if you couldn't use it with TWF? That's all the Light property does! That seems like a bug.

The whole weapon list gives the distinct impression of being cobbled together in fifteen minutes.

[da_chicken]

The whole weapon list gives the distinct impression of being cobbled together in fifteen minutes.

I don't think it's a problem with the weapon table.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Well, if they're like haste and grant a special action that can only be used for attacks, then I interpret it to mean you could fire a crossbow during them (once). If, instead, they modify how the Attack action functions like Extra Attack does, then that's another story.

Sorry, I assumed you'd work out that I was connecting my comment with your bit about fighter's extra attack. Which is what the bard with the college of war gains...

"Starting at 6th level, you can attack one extra time whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."


On another point about attacks and actions. I wonder how people will react to the Ranger (Beast Master) when it appears to the public. :)

[pwykersotz]

I don't think it's a problem with the weapon table.

But it would be nice to have them tell us how to build custom weapons instead of giving us a table. Something like benefits costing x points, penalties providing x points, and the whole weapon needing to balance at 0 to be valid. Then it could freely model a massively higher amount of weapons than what is printed. Maybe they'll do this eventually. I hope so, but I suspect not.

[da_chicken]

But it would be nice to have them tell us how to build custom weapons instead of giving us a table. Something like benefits costing x points, penalties providing x points, and the whole weapon needing to balance at 0 to be valid. Then it could freely model a massively higher amount of weapons than what is printed. Maybe they'll do this eventually. I hope so, but I suspect not.

That sounds like a fantastic tool... for the DMG. :smalltongue:

[Morty]

I don't think it's a problem with the weapon table.

It is and it isn't. There's no excuse for not noticing that the Light property of the hand crossbow doesn't seem to actually do anything - the question is whether it should be removed, or if the rules for two-weapon fighting should be amened to allow for them - my personal preference is the latter, of course. Either way, it's sloppy.

[Tholomyes]

It is and it isn't. There's no excuse for not noticing that the Light property of the hand crossbow doesn't seem to actually do anything - the question is whether it should be removed, or if the rules for two-weapon fighting should be amened to allow for them - my personal preference is the latter, of course. Either way, it's sloppy.While I do agree that it's stupid for TWF to disallow for ranged options, We also don't know that there is no other purpose for light weapons than TWF. Sure, it is currently only for TWF, but it is quite possible that there's a feat or class feature which cares about it. I don't disagree that the weapon chart is underwhelming, and feels a bit cobbled together, or that TWF hand-crossbows would be nice to allow base, without having to rely on it being, presumably, a feat-tax or class-feature tax, but I'd like to see the final PHB rules, to make sure there's no other reason to have hand crossbows be light.

[pwykersotz]

That sounds like a fantastic tool... for the DMG. :smalltongue:

Ah, Schrodinger's DMG. It contains both everything in our hopes, dreams, and predictions, and yet is a barren wasteland of useless paper and ink. :smalltongue:

[Sartharina]

Let me put it this way, putting the whole crossbow quality debate aside. Being proficient at your chosen weapon is something you should get from levels in a class that has weapon use as part of its skill-set. The feat we're discussing is basically the exact opposite to what I think feats should do. A wizard or cleric picking up a feat to be able to hit the broad side of the barn with a crossbow, or maybe a bow - that might be worth a feat, because it's not something they normally do. Or a fighter whose class feature choices specialize her in some other weapon picking a feat to expand her repertoire. But you should not have to take feats related to your core competence.On the contrary, I like that feats allow a class to specialize further than they're supposed to, or allow effective cross-classing. All classes have weapon use as part of their skillset, wizards and clerics included. Those that want to be focused on using a weapon should have the option to do so effectively, instead of being as derided as a 3e Wizard With Power Attack. A Fighter that chooses more generally-useful feats is still a brutally effective generalist. A fighter with the crossbow specialization feat is an effective generalist combatant, and brutal with a crossbow.

The feat is for people that want to specialize in a weapon above and beyond par (BUt not so much that it breaks the game). It's expected that a Fighter will grab the weapon feat that fits with his or her or its preferred combat style, and possibly a few others. It's part of why they have 2 extra feats over everyone else. Someone who wants to remain a weapon-swapping


Yes, it was mandatory, which is the whole point. 90% of melee fighters needed to have it, or some way of compensating for not having it.It wouldn't be a problem if it were mandatory for brute combat specialists, but optional or even worthless for non-brute combat specialists, and made non-brute combat specialists worthless because they didn't get anything of comparable power.

The problem was 90% of melee fighters needed it, and all ranged fighters couldn't compete with it. If ranged fighters were viable, and there was more diversity in the viable melee options not reliant on Power Attack, then Power Attack wouldn't have been a problem at all. In fact, I think 4e almost had a good balance of feats with its weapon group feats (And the riders on Weapon Expertise!).

Another problem was there were too many feats - They couldn't balance a Power Attack+Cleave two-hander guy against a Weapon Focus + Specialization Sword+Board Guy because it was possible to have a Power Attack+Weapon Focus+Cleave+Weapon Specialization guy.

[captpike]

Well, one good metric for measuring success might be "what is it being replaced with?". For example, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that took 4e and improved or expanded on it, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was successful by WotC's standards. On the other hand, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that largely rolls back all the things 4e did and changed, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was not successful by WotC's standards. We can reach these conclusions because large companies (like Hasbro / WotC) are largely risk averse and tend not to make sweeping changes to their successful and winning formulas, and when they do make those sweeping changes, if those changes fail to live up to expectations, they get quickly rolled back.



I can't speak for the previous poster, but I'm not assuming they're only doing what's best. I'm assuming they're doing what they think will gain them the most money, since that's what companies tend to do. As I pointed out above, companies don't do sweeping changes lightly. Somewhere, someone looked at the money they were making with pre-4e D&D, and the money they were making with 4e D&D, and decided that they were likely to make more money with a new edition that was more like pre-4e D&D.

Then there's also the basic examination we can do on industry trends. The TTRPG industry is actually growing right now. Multiple indie games are taking hold or expanding (Burning Wheel / Mouseguard, Fiasco, Fate etc) and new entrants are making lots of money with old D&D (Pathfinder, the entire OSR movement). And with all of this activity, the best we can come up with for 4e is that "it made at least as much as its predecessor". Here's the problem, when your industry is growing, new entrants are making money, and your next biggest competitor is giving away your previous product for free and is still competing neck and neck with you for share and tables and the best you can say about your current product is "It's not doing worse than the last product that our competitors are still making money off of", you don't generally call that a success. Treading water (by corporate standards in a growth market) is not considered success.

so your suggested metric is "trust that Wotc has good data, and has put it to good use" even though they have shown, at best, bad judgement lately? that is not a metric that is just pointing to someone and trusting what they say even though you have no reason to do so.

pathfinder is a horrible comparison to make to D&D. they were able to copy a already existing game (saving them the cost of making a rule set) take all the people unwilling to move on (saving them the cost advertising and such).

the VERY LEAST that can be said about 4e is that it is make more money then 3e, how much we do not know but we do know the books were at least the same, with DDI bringing in more. that is what I said because that is all I know for sure. it would not surprise me in the least if it make alot more money then 3e, but I dont know that for sure.



Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of issues with what WotC has done with the D&D magic system that need to be cleaned up, but "wizards win all the encounters" is a DM failing. Set up your encounters correctly and your wizards will be helpful but not overpowering.

why should I Have to plan every encounter around the wizard? why is it the DMs job to plan around every spell the wizard has? that means the DM has to have memorized every spell all of his casters have. and more importantly why is such narrative power not given to the non-casters?




Why are you bothering to defend something that you acknowledge is flawed?

because while it is flawed it is not useless, in fact its the only way to get any data on the subject.



And this is my problem with you. You can't see past 4e. I am using the editions that 5e is most similar to (3.5 & 2e IMO), as a baseline. It is not similar to 4e, therefore using it as a baseline would be ill advised.

were that their stated goal I would agree, if they had said "we are making 2.75" then I would judge it on those merit's, but they have not. they have said its a "game for everyone" meaning every major playstyle. so if it can't do what 4e did then it fails, even if it can do what 2e and 3e can do, just as if it can do what 4e did well, but it cant do what 3e does well it would fail.

I am looking at if from the 4e point of view because I know that edition best.



Additionally, you seem to voluntarily ignore all comments directed at you that state simply... If 4e was such a success, why didn't they use IT as the base for 5e? Could it possibly be that either the TOTAL fan base is in favor of a different type of game, or that your 4e fan base is not nearly as influential as you want to believe? See post quoted below that says the same thing.

....I have addressed this multiple times in multiple thread. but because you seam to not remember them I will do so again.

I am sure that someone at Wotc thought they had a good reason to do that, that does not mean it was right, nor that it was made on good data. Wotc is in fact capable of being wrong, of being stupid in fact (see essentials).

when I see data or logic that tells me different I will listen. "that guy over there thinks differently then you, you should through away your opinion now" is neither.



In plain English, your opinions are biased and you refuse to acknowledge other points of view. You are entitled to such a stance of course, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to listen. Noone has to listen to me either. I accept this. Just as I accept that what I state is nothing more than opinion. I don't claim to state facts.
I do, but if I believed those who thought different from me were right I would change my mind.

[Sartharina]

why should I Have to plan every encounter around the wizard? why is it the DMs job to plan around every spell the wizard has? that means the DM has to have memorized every spell all of his casters have. and more importantly why is such narrative power not given to the non-casters?Because you need to plan around every ability everyone has, not just the wizard.

[captpike]

Because you need to plan around every ability everyone has, not just the wizard.

you don't find that a bit much? do you really think its reasonable to ask every DM to memorize every spell just in case the fight he was going to make is easy countered by a spell?

this is lazy design at its worst. rather then have clear limits on PCs powers like "its only level 5, so no one has a fly speed". they instead just put whatever sounds cool in the spells and hope the DMs have a good memory.

[Sartharina]

you don't find that a bit much? do you really think its reasonable to ask every DM to memorize every spell just in case the fight he was going to make is easy countered by a spell?

this is lazy design at its worst. rather then have clear limits on PCs powers like "its only level 5, so no one has a fly speed". they instead just put whatever sounds cool in the spells and hope the DMs have a good memory.
No, you don't have to memorize every spell. But you do need to keep in mind that "Area of Effect Spells and abilities exist, and can trivialize encounters that are clumped tightly together."

[Knaight]

Historicallly, Crossbows were the weapons of the peasantry. Historically, English Longbowmen were superior to not only Crossbowmen, but also Musketeers. Why is a Fighter trying to use an inferior weapon when he has the training to take advantage of the superior one? The crossbow is for those who can't make multiple attacks per round or aren't proficient with bows. Frankly, crossbows being worse than bows is not a problem any more than Clubs being worse than warhammers and flails.

King Richard III was famous partially for his skill with a crossbow. Several urban militias (including Genoa) were famed for crossbow usage, and urban militias frequently involved a number of serious fighters, along with being a major source of mercenaries. Crossbows were downright preferred in a number of siege situations. They aren't an inferior weapon realistically.

[Merc_Kilsek]

No, you don't have to memorize every spell. But you do need to keep in mind that "Area of Effect Spells and abilities exist, and can trivialize encounters that are clumped tightly together."

I completely agree this above and would add that adventure design, beside the frame work of math and figures, is just as much about the players sitting at the table. Knowing what you players are playing is helpful but having a insight on what will encourage immersion and entertain them is tricky business on a DM part. Also your world plays a part in what can and can't happen within it. Pressure from in game events, situations, etc can challenge players regardless of what they play. In all my years of DMing and different editions of spell-casters I've never had one every run rough shot over the campaign, encounters sure, but never a campaign.

[Yuukale]

As a historian devoted to studying archery, I must point out that crossbows are capable of achieving longer ranges and higher penetration power than perhaps the strongest longbows (those around 190lbs). As for musketeers, unless you're talking about the very first hackbutts and muskets (early 16th century), studies have shown that the modern (1550+) firearms hold the advantage when it comes to penetration and distance. Rate of fire though, is an entirely different matter...

"Longbow superiority" was born out of exacerbation of english victories during the hundred years war (and the ignoring of other key factors in those victories, such as the massed use and the employment of archers alongside dismounted knights in defensive, well-chosen positions).

[Sartharina]

I reject your reality and replace it with my own, where historical English Longbowmen used bows capable of punching through dozens of ranks with a single arrow, and when the enemies got close, they pulled out their massive mattocks and went to town smashing everyone and everything to pieces with them! :smalltongue:

[Yuukale]

Ok, you made me like you. What if I tell you that most of the times I try to replace reality with this very same one you use?
Here, have my like. :smalltongue:

[1337 b4k4]

so your suggested metric is "trust that Wotc has good data, and has put it to good use" even though they have shown, at best, bad judgement lately? that is not a metric that is just pointing to someone and trusting what they say even though you have no reason to do so.

You'll forgive me if I'm more apt to trust the company that's actually in the industry, has access to their sales figures and is responding to the current market trends in exactly the way one would expect them to respond to the current market trends if their current product wasn't successful over "Captpike, Economist to the RPG Stars"



pathfinder is a horrible comparison to make to D&D. they were able to copy a already existing game (saving them the cost of making a rule set) take all the people unwilling to move on (saving them the cost advertising and such).

It's actually a perfect comparison, precisely because it's a copy of an already existing game. It allows us to do something that we haven't been able to do before. Prior to the OGL and Pathfinder, when WotC (or TSR before them) decided to change editions, your options (as both an old or new player) was to buy the new material regardless of whether you liked it or not or stick with a dwindling supply of old prints. No new material, no more support and no books in stores to either buy new or replace old. As a result, one could never truly account for how many players would have preferred to stick with the older edition over the newer edition. Sure there were those that left for a new system entirely, but it's long been suspected there was a glob of customers who just shuffled along to the next version. Now we have pathfinder and unlike every time previous, fans and people who prefer the old edition can not only continue to play with their old materials, but also buy new and supported materials. And you know what we've discovered? Even when the company in question is giving away the rules of the game for free, and realistically it's a product all of their target market should already own, they're still neck and neck with WotC for top TTRPG company, with a product that's 10 years old.

Now, when faced with this sort of evidence, one can do two things:
1) You can do as you appear to do, and write off this massive segment of the player base as "grognards" and stuck in their ways. Write them off as people who are apparently too stupid to realize they're playing an obviously inferior game. And you can continue down your new chosen path of a vastly different game who's sales have been adequate at best, but not phenomenal given the growth of the industry all around you. Or

2) You can go back and examine what it is that has enabled a company selling your previous product to become the contender for top TTRPG company. What about that edition has attracted so many fans and players and allowed them to thrive and to grow on a 10 year old product that they're giving away for free and that most of their customers should already own. And after doing this sowt of self examination, you can decide whether staying on your current course is the correct course, or if possibly rolling back some of your substantial changes and revisiting your prior successes might be a good course of action.



why should I Have to plan every encounter around the wizard? why is it the DMs job to plan around every spell the wizard has? that means the DM has to have memorized every spell all of his casters have. and more importantly why is such narrative power not given to the non-casters?


I hardly think "design encounters that are interesting and tactical and don't have all the enemies for the entire encounter clumping together and attacking the nearest PC blindly and without strategy" is requiring the DM to plan every encounter around the wizard. But further more, yes, the DM should know what their players are capable of. How else do you generate encounters if you don't know what your players can and can't do?

[Breltar]

Actually, what the hell? Why would hand crossbow even have the Light property if you couldn't use it with TWF? That's all the Light property does! That seems like a bug.

I ignored that for a rogue that wanted to TWF with a shortsword and a hand crossbow. Didn't make sense to me that they could throw but not shoot something that is specifically meant to be shot one handed. Might be an oversight, might be for some feat later, but right now it doesn't seem very overpowered.

[Morty]

While I do agree that it's stupid for TWF to disallow for ranged options, We also don't know that there is no other purpose for light weapons than TWF. Sure, it is currently only for TWF, but it is quite possible that there's a feat or class feature which cares about it. I don't disagree that the weapon chart is underwhelming, and feels a bit cobbled together, or that TWF hand-crossbows would be nice to allow base, without having to rely on it being, presumably, a feat-tax or class-feature tax, but I'd like to see the final PHB rules, to make sure there's no other reason to have hand crossbows be light.

If there's reason for them to be light in the PHB, then they should get that property in the PHB. Otherwise it's just messy. Mind you, for that very reason I do not expect that to happen - the weapon list in the Basic Set shows that they just didn't care. They could have put a trimmed down, concise and general list of weapons there, saving all the bells and whistles and weapon properties for the PHB. Instead we get the same old illusion of choice that takes up way more space than it should.


On the contrary, I like that feats allow a class to specialize further than they're supposed to, or allow effective cross-classing. All classes have weapon use as part of their skillset, wizards and clerics included. Those that want to be focused on using a weapon should have the option to do so effectively, instead of being as derided as a 3e Wizard With Power Attack. A Fighter that chooses more generally-useful feats is still a brutally effective generalist. A fighter with the crossbow specialization feat is an effective generalist combatant, and brutal with a crossbow.

The feat is for people that want to specialize in a weapon above and beyond par (BUt not so much that it breaks the game). It's expected that a Fighter will grab the weapon feat that fits with his or her or its preferred combat style, and possibly a few others. It's part of why they have 2 extra feats over everyone else. Someone who wants to remain a weapon-swapping

The problem here is that 'generalist' is a meaningless term in 5e's combat system, barring optional rules. You're going to use a melee weapon or a ranged weapon, possibly with a back-up weapon of the other category, and that's it. Whether or not you take a feat for axes or not, you're not going to swap between axes and swords, because there's no point. Same goes for crossbows and bows. If fighters (or warriors in general) are expected to pick up a feat to reflect their weapon proficiency, it should be their class feature.


It wouldn't be a problem if it were mandatory for brute combat specialists, but optional or even worthless for non-brute combat specialists, and made non-brute combat specialists worthless because they didn't get anything of comparable power.

The problem was 90% of melee fighters needed it, and all ranged fighters couldn't compete with it. If ranged fighters were viable, and there was more diversity in the viable melee options not reliant on Power Attack, then Power Attack wouldn't have been a problem at all.

Why not make it a combat option that's only available for certain combat groups, then? Since people who want to swing two-handers need it anyway, why not give it to them for free? A feat tax for a smaller category of characters is still a feat tax. Feats should never be mandatory.


In fact, I think 4e almost had a good balance of feats with its weapon group feats (And the riders on Weapon Expertise!).

Except for the part where you had to take them in order to keep up with the math.

[obryn]

Because you need to plan around every ability everyone has, not just the wizard.
Pragmatically speaking, no, you don't. In 5e - just like in many editions - full casters are the only characters with significantly broad, unusual, and deep narrative-changing power. Everyone else has skills and swords.

[Person_Man]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but in a new interview Mearls confirms that there will be a more complex Fighter option.

http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview-with-dd-lead-designer-mike-mearls-gamers-wanted-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html

[Morty]

It's been known for a while. By all appearances, the 'complex' option is, to put it mildly, underwhelming.

[obryn]

It's been known for a while. By all appearances, the 'complex' option is, to put it mildly, underwhelming.
Yep.

And I think the 1-hour "short rest" makes them even moreso.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yep.

And I think the 1-hour "short rest" makes them even moreso.

I really like the 1 hour short rest, however if the more active fighter isn't impressive it will make the 1 hour rest feel like a waste of time.

It takes me 1 hour so I can trip people a little better again but it also take the wizard 1 hour to get back his reality bending spells? How is that logical?

Versus

It takes me the same time to get back my energy after pushing the bounds of reality just like it does for the mage, that makes sense.

[Fwiffo86]

so your suggested metric is "trust that Wotc has good data, and has put it to good use" even though they have shown, at best, bad judgement lately? that is not a metric that is just pointing to someone and trusting what they say even though you have no reason to do so.

and....


I am sure that someone at Wotc thought they had a good reason to do that, that does not mean it was right, nor that it was made on good data. Wotc is in fact capable of being wrong, of being stupid in fact (see essentials).


It doesn't mean the data was wrong either. This is a concept you fail to grasp. Your personal belief about the data is irrelevant. Just because you don't like how they did something is not proof that they did it wrong.

Get off the horse, you are not an expert on these matters until you can provide personal credentials that say otherwise. Until proof of your credentials is provided (and Im talking about your PERSONAL credentials so you don't get confused) your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Other matters....

So, am I understanding that you are asking for a more defined martial system, but when one is provided you are dismissing it because it is underwhelming? Isn't that like asking for a cookie, and then not eating it because it wasn't Oatmeal?

[Morty]

So, am I understanding that you are asking for a more defined martial system, but when one is provided you are dismissing it because it is underwhelming? Isn't that like asking for a cookie, and then not eating it because it wasn't Oatmeal?

No, it's like being told what a system will look like, not liking what we're hearing and seeing no reason to settle for less. It's not very complicated.

[Person_Man]

"The complex fighter regains expertise dice, the resource used to power maneuvers, after taking a one hour rest. In essence, those are encounter powers."

"It’s funny, because in fourth edition the short rest was usually a trivial obstacle. By lengthening it, we found that people were much more careful with their “encounter” powers and felt genuinely rewarded when they were able to regain them. It’s one of those subtle but important shifts in the game."


With all due respect to Mike, its not a subtle shift. The 1 hour long Short Rest requirement basically removes Encounter powers entirely, and changes it to "once per adventure location or until you stop for a Long Rest."

A typical dungeon or other adventure location is going to have multiple encounters, and players aren't going to stop to rest 1 hour until they've cleared it out, unless the magic users have run out of spells. And then they'll cast Rope Trick and take a Long Rest.



So, am I understanding that you are asking for a more defined martial system, but when one is provided you are dismissing it because it is underwhelming? Isn't that like asking for a cookie, and then not eating it because it wasn't Oatmeal?

No, I think they looked at the evidence and drew the wrong conclusions from it.

One of the primary lessons learned from 3.5 was that the absolute most important points of balance in the game were how much a class could do in a single round, and how much a class could do during an encounter, because "daily" resources (like memorizing spells) were far too easy to metagame and manipulate. That's why 4E moved to At-Will/Encounter/Daily resources.

WotC looked at feedback from 4E that said that people wanted more unique classes. I support that 100%. But they could have accomplished that goal in a lot of different ways. Take a look at Legend or FATE for example, both of which have great balance. Instead, Mike decided to create more unique classes by basically returning to the flawed class structure and Vancian casting of 3.5. They threw out the baby with the dirty bath water.

[Fwiffo86]

No, it's like being told what a system will look like, not liking what we're hearing and seeing no reason to settle for less. It's not very complicated.

All right, I can see that. Am I to understand that you would prefer no system then instead of an underwhelming one? If you will not settle for less, that sort of implies you will dismiss the mechanic it its entirety. Do I have that correct?

[1337 b4k4]

With all due respect to Mike, its not a subtle shift. The 1 hour long Short Rest requirement basically removes Encounter powers entirely, and changes it to "once per adventure location or until you stop for a Long Rest."

I think in actual play, it will work out to a twice a day sort of thing. Start adventuring, get into some fights, stop for lunch (get your powers back), do some adventuring, get into some fights, stop for dinner (get your powers back), choose between bedding down or pressing on, stop for long rest.

That said, I agree that it would be nice to see limited resources that interact with the system beyond just the short / long rest dynamic. I still think it would have been nice to see a "per round" charging system for fighter powers, perhaps starting the day (and after every short rest) with a full charge.

On the gripping hand, given the explicitness of "only benefit from one long rest per 24 hours", there's no reason your table couldn't decide to make short rests 30 minutes or even 10 minutes. Heck, if they had (or you do) brought back wandering monsters, limiting short rests would be accomplished by declaring a short rest as "10 minutes or more of downtime during which a wandering monster check is rolled. If a wandering monster appears, you don't gain the benefits of the short rest".

[obryn]

"The complex fighter regains expertise dice, the resource used to power maneuvers, after taking a one hour rest. In essence, those are encounter powers."

"It’s funny, because in fourth edition the short rest was usually a trivial obstacle. By lengthening it, we found that people were much more careful with their “encounter” powers and felt genuinely rewarded when they were able to regain them. It’s one of those subtle but important shifts in the game."
Or, "OH NO! People are using their Encounter powers every Encounter! How can I stop them?!"

I have numerous concerns about this.

[Sartharina]

The problem here is that 'generalist' is a meaningless term in 5e's combat system, barring optional rules. You're going to use a melee weapon or a ranged weapon, possibly with a back-up weapon of the other category, and that's it. Whether or not you take a feat for axes or not, you're not going to swap between axes and swords, because there's no point. Same goes for crossbows and bows. If fighters (or warriors in general) are expected to pick up a feat to reflect their weapon proficiency, it should be their class feature.Unless you're a sword user who finds a magical Axe with a situationally-useful property, or so on.



Why not make it a combat option that's only available for certain combat groups, then? Since people who want to swing two-handers need it anyway, why not give it to them for free? A feat tax for a smaller category of characters is still a feat tax. Feats should never be mandatory. Because the Rogue, Cleric, Monk, Wizard, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Bard, etc. also want to be able to swing a two-hander. The fighter's class features should be tied into making him awesome in combat without tying him to any specific weapon type. Feats are like big Background Traits.


Except for the part where you had to take them in order to keep up with the math.The problem there was the game's math, not the feat.

With all due respect to Mike, its not a subtle shift. The 1 hour long Short Rest requirement basically removes Encounter powers entirely, and changes it to "once per adventure location or until you stop for a Long Rest."

Actually, I think what they're trying to do here is bring back the "Secure the area" gameplay. An hour's not that long. In my games so far, the party's had no problem getting a short rest when they need it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Or, "OH NO! People are using their Encounter powers every Encounter! How can I stop them?!"

I have numerous concerns about this.

In all honesty I would like to see another mechanic that "short or long rest" used for Maneuver system.

If a Fighter isn't actively in combat or doing physical exhausting work... I don't see why it wouldn't count that as a rest. Just walking around in the back of the party (let's face it, the fighter stays back usually) and not using stealth should count.

I just hope that the maneuvers will be worth the refresh time it takes to get them back.

[obryn]

I just hope that the maneuvers will be worth the refresh time it takes to get them back.
I am going to go with, "generally on par with cantrips or 1st-level spells."

Remember, the Battlemaster Fighter gets one list of maneuvers. This same list is used from Level 1 to Level 20.

[Person_Man]

Actually, I think what they're trying to do here is bring back the "Secure the area" gameplay. An hour's not that long. In my games so far, the party's had no problem getting a short rest when they need it.

I think you're right about this.

But depending (very heavily) on your DM, a floor of a dungeon/adventure location might have anywhere between one and a dozen+ combat encounters and who knows how many traps. That puts a lot of doubt in players minds about when they should use their Short Rest. So it basically removes "Encounter" based abilities as a thing, and shifts it into a "probably more then once but probably not more then 3ish times Daily" resource.

[SiuiS]

I know of it, but I could never spare enough money to buy it. Unless there's a free version of the rules I'm unaware of.

Alright. I will see if I can pare down the proficiencies rules to something legal to show you for comparison purposes.


I think there's design space for class-agnostic build features. However, I think feats - as they exist in D&D - don't adequately fill that space.

Hmm. Okay. I don't think of feats as inherently path-agnostic, but I get the idea there.
I do see the general idea they were going for, though. It wasn't until ACFs became a thig that feats finally fell apart.



(1) Feats are used for everything that's class-agnostic. It's a grab bag - the "Miscellaneous" category that has outgrown your filing system. Learning a language or a skill costs a feat. A special maneuver with a weapon costs a feat. Being awesome with armor costs a feat. A bonus on a class of saving throws costs a feat. It's a tremendous hodge-podge of stuff, mixing together combat, non-combat; bonuses, and new options.

Hm. How do you feel about WoD merits?


(2) The value of feats are set at "1 feat." This is fine for simplicity, but it doesn't bear out in practice on account of the first issue.

Word.


(3) Feats are poorly organized, and quickly bloat beyond reasonable limits given the open design space. Just like with "spells" I tend to think this is an inherent problem with the design, rather than a problem with bloat itself. Bloat is inevitable given this setup.
ed:

Heh. Yeah. I remember when that was intentional design. Skills were limited and supposed to be Iut of combat and feats were this open design space for cool combat powers or things so powerful you specifically have up combat power for them (crafting). Boy was that silly.


(4) They often turn into class features, which is terrible. Getting more feats isn't a class feature, it's just more of what everyone gets. If your class design relies on feats, it's mingling together class-based and class-agnostic features. I can go into this more later, but it's part of why I think the 3e (and 5e) Fighters are so unsatisfying. "More of what everyone gets" isn't a real class feature; it's a cop-out for a class-based game.

This one I disagree with in principle although I get the flawed execution.

I don't like the kneejerk. A legitimate system using the term "feats" will be shot down because it's called feats by people who literally scream "feats are not class features" as their only response to a thread. But that's bull****.

Let's take the fighter. Let's take everything unique a fighter is supposed to do (dropped the damn ball, WotC! What is a fighter even supposed to do?!). Now let's assume that instead of "fighter bonus feats", there was a default fighter who got, I don't know, sword and board and power attack and combat expertise. And every two levels he got another class feature. And every splatbook that was released didn't have feats a fighter could use; they had ACFs which expanded the fighter into different niches. Let's also say the PHB has a feat, something like "Martial conditioning: you may choose a fighter class feature. Your total fighter level is your character level -2."

The end-use result is almost the same as fighters getting fighter feats. Seems a lot more workable though, if only because of one point; these ACFs don't have to be balanced against skill focus.



* Give every feat both combat and non-combat applications
* Tie feats closer to the class structure, like they are in 13th Age, where they are no longer class-agnostic, by and large; they are enhancements to your race or class.
* Organize them in a much smaller number of chains, like you'd find in many CRPGs nowadays. That way, you're not picking from 200 feats; you're picking one of maybe 10 each time, then improving them. This also allows you to effectively set variable costs.
* You should never have to decide between "effective" and "interesting." When given a choice, players tend to go with boring passive bonuses. These boring static bonuses should just be incorporated into the class progressions and just taken as a given, and thus be largely removed from the "feat" design space - which can then be leveraged for more interesting stuff.

Aye.


e: Also, in both 1e and 4e I've seen successful "Fighter up front, Wizard in back" setups. In 1e, it's largely a result of dungeon environs where corridors made it possible. In 4e, it's because the Fighter's a very well-designed class, and that's how the game works.

Oh. 4e I'll give you. I didn't consider it because of the wide open nature of most conflicts but you're right.



The problem with the tier system is that it presents a false composition.[/auote]

It's a measure of potenti magnitudes. Yes, a wizard can choose only attack spells and miss with every spell and always roll minimum, but that has nothing to do with wizard potential. Just like a fighter could use his sword like a pogo stick and forgo armor and sit down to churn butter in the middle of e'ery fight and shout Buddhist prayers.

"Player can screw up" doesn't factor into class. They're two different things. One is a possibility. The other an expression.

[quote]
This mirrors my experience. Anybody bringing a TO build to the table would be told in no uncertain terms to make a real character.


TO isn't that hard though. It's possible to accidentally build one into a normal character. Especially if you're a wizard.



I agree RAW is a crap concept, but I disagree that "if a rule exists to let you do something, the only way to do that thing is to meet the requirements of the rule" is a M:tG thing. That's just how games work.


No, it's not. Many games allow open space. Many games use principles instead of rigid rules; think the difference between a vector graphic and a rastered image.

For example: say you are playing 3e. You have spring attack. You have pounce. Could you spring attack past many enemies? The idea of running and mowing down several foes is iconic. This answer changes in 3e when the blitz feat chain came into existence because of apophatic reasoning. Few other games would open up that concept and then immediately restrict it like that. Core 3e was very good about creating principles to extrapolate from. 3.5 cleNed it up a bit, but then continued into strangling-right technical application.

Fate wouldn't have this problem. Because fate allows open decision space and the ability to deal with weirdness.



He's talked about it several times. I know he doesn't like having to pick from a giant list of feats and he doesn't like that they're often +2 to minor thing. I don't know if he'd prefer if feats were class-specifc features from a list of 3-5 at each level, or if he'd rather just not deal with them at all.


That is how feats have been messed up by the same people routinely, not what is wrong with feats-as-concept. What was wrog with the concept is what I wanted to know. His answer (that they are poorly implemented and possibly always will be as an inherent trait) is a good answer.



I hate to put it this way because it makes me a jerk, but if you have a group that prefers selfish and degenerate play that's not the game's fault or the game's problem. You just have a bad group full of munchkins.

"A group"? No. I had a bad tristate area. This was the default for Colorado, Nevada and Southern California. It seems to be the natural result of role players who are self taught on D&D. You'll find this in other games, where the system is designed for specific play style and there's the one group who just miss the point and try to murderhobo through it?

The rest of this is a set of assumptions and flawed correlations, I think, and not worth is getting into quibbles over.



D&D is roll d20, add a modifier, and compare it to a set or rolled target number.

Using one of the bell curve generated attributes based on applicability in this situation, provided you have enough arbitrary class-points remaining and have not elapsed a duration that exceeds the limits provided by an attribute, and you must decide whether this is an instant roll or an extended one based on a number of factors up to and including the arbitrary "this ability never gets extended rolls (until it does)".

Contract apocalypse world. "Pick a Archetype. Pick stats based on theme. Everything that happens ever uses 2d6+(stat), 5+ succeeds, 10+ succeeds greatly, always be asking questions" and that's basically the entire system as opposed to a single mechanic.


I'm confused as to how you can try to say my opinion on how I'd prefer my games to play is wrong.

Because it is wrong.

The old chestnut "opinions can't be wrong" is based off of having a personal stance on something without a definite right answer. For things that do have definite right answers, such as historical evidence about magic, there are facts and there are incorrect ideas. Calling an incorrect idea an opinion does not make it magically untouchable, it makes whoever holds that opinion misguided (provided they are interested in knowing the truth).

If your opinion is that the comparison is valid, your opinion is wrong because the comparison is demonstratably not valid. If your opinion is based on bad math, I will show you where the math goes wrong so you can reassess. But if you hold to the no-longer-validated opinion, I don't have to respect that. I just have to acknowledge that you chose that wrong answer and have a right to be wrong (but not a right to insist you are actually correct; I don't have to lie down for your opinion to have room).


I don't want my fighter to only be effective because of the magic items she wields, but rather I want her to be effective on her own, and have the magic items, at most, complement the character's natural ability.

Then don't play D&D. D&D doesn't want that.

Your fighter is competent on their own against natural threats. Your fighter can kill a bear in a sword fight. That's ****ing amazing, I don't think people realize how terrifying an animal attack like that is. Go fighter! But when supernatural stuff comes up that can only be hurt by supernatural stuff, you don't really get to complain that you're forced to use a tool to achieve a goal. You always use a tool to achieve a goal, so you're really just complaining that you are supposed to use the right tool for the job instead of using a hammer to turn screws.

D&D is a game about men (the race) fighting against insurmountable odds in a post apocalyptic land where good and evil have marshaled actual armies. Some men choose to become supernatural monsters, some men choose to use supernatural tools, but everyone who is a hero has chosen to combat the supernatural on it's turf.



OH HELL NO! The worst part of 3e was the feat chains.
.

Think skill tree, not feat chain.

Are you familiar with Mass Effect? The origins had character growth that was frankly useless until high levels; you could purchase a 1% boost to duration and a 3% boost to damage with every rank in a 30 rank skill. That's 3e; +1 here, +40' there, oh look, you've now unlocked the "throw knives" skill that lets you suck less at throwing knives!

Mass effect 3 fixed that, enormously. You have on average six trees; three active combat powers, class passive boosts (like increasing your ranger FE bonus or your paladin smite damage), your 'stats' skill to boost your health and recovery or your melee capacity, and your combat skill to boost your weapon damage or carry capacity. After the basics (usually rounding out the skill) you could branch out. You could focus on defense or on melee or split it; you could get a power that hit hard or that hit in a huge area or split the difference. And it wasn't just numbers; it was qualitative stuff pretty often.

Conceptually, this is possible. It's just not always easy to execute from the ground up. They tried with saga edition, and it seemed to work but was too limited.


I agree with Morty. But I also tend to think a too rigidly built concept is also bad for characters. Because if you have a concept that by its very nature requires "Feat A, B & C, Class 1 & 2, etc" you already have your character planned out to level 20, which means you have no room to grow in response to the game.

You can't plan on religious experiences that change your life decisions as an example. Sure, you can say... "I always wanted to be a part of the priesthood" but designing 20 levels of character before you get anywhere near them takes out the possibility your character will grow based on Roleplaying and Player decisions in game.

I dunno. I think that's to rigid on DMs part. If the player honestly wants a religious experience to guide their development, you should be open to it happening. But I'm spoiled.


That sounds like a fantastic tool... for the DMG. :smalltongue:

I like old school stuff here.

Crappy weapon like club or dagger? D4
One handed? D6.
Used In Two hands for power attack stuff? D8.
Always two handed? D10.

Using one hands lot for defense? (Shield or similar) +defense
Using it for offense? + attack.
Committed to the two hands on weapon? + damage or reach.


you don't find that a bit much? do you really think its reasonable to ask every DM to memorize every spell just in case the fight he was going to make is easy countered by a spell?

this is lazy design at its worst. rather then have clear limits on PCs powers like "its only level 5, so no one has a fly speed". they instead just put whatever sounds cool in the spells and hope the DMs have a good memory.

Yes. I think it's acceptible. This is why we considered DM a prestigious position in the day.


Or, "OH NO! People are using their Encounter powers every Encounter! How can I stop them?!"

I have numerous concerns about this.

Hmm. But wasn't this what we asked for in playtest?

[Sartharina]

I think you're right about this.

But depending (very heavily) on your DM, a floor of a dungeon/adventure location might have anywhere between one and a dozen+ combat encounters and who knows how many traps. That puts a lot of doubt in players minds about when they should use their Short Rest. So it basically removes "Encounter" based abilities as a thing, and shifts it into a "probably more then once but probably not more then 3ish times Daily" resource.

I'd expect to be able to get 3 short rests into an adventuring day, dividing the adventuring day neatly into 4 encounters - yet those encounters aren't "Start when you roll initiative, end when badguys stop moving" when you're dungeon-crawling, but instead "Areas A, C, E, and Z" of the dungeon, including ALL monsters, traps, and other hidden fun stuffs. In fact, the new bounded accuracy and relevance of low-level monsters makes this more possible - A level 1 party might be forced to rest after taking on 5 orcs in one of these "encounters". While 50 orcs would brutally murder even high-level adventurers in a massive clump, when you spread those out over 5 different rooms, they become much more managable. Higher-level parties can clear out a dungeon faster than a low-level one, because their encounters get larger.

Reclaiming Blingdenstone is an adventure at level 1. At level 20, it's an encounter.

[Tehnar]

and....



It doesn't mean the data was wrong either. This is a concept you fail to grasp. Your personal belief about the data is irrelevant. Just because you don't like how they did something is not proof that they did it wrong.

Get off the horse, you are not an expert on these matters until you can provide personal credentials that say otherwise. Until proof of your credentials is provided (and Im talking about your PERSONAL credentials so you don't get confused) your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Other matters....

So, am I understanding that you are asking for a more defined martial system, but when one is provided you are dismissing it because it is underwhelming? Isn't that like asking for a cookie, and then not eating it because it wasn't Oatmeal?

We might never know exact data behind 4e sales, but it is indicative that the lead of 4e got fired every year it was in print. Rob Heinsoo, Jonathan Tweet, Bill Slaviscek, Richard Baker, Andy Collins all got laid off. We will see how well 5e is doing dependent on/if Mearls keeps his job. Though why he still has a job is a mystery to me.


On topic; WotC maybe has time to change the DMG a bit...the PHB and the MM are set in stone due to printing and shipping concerns.
What concerns me is the interview with Mearls where he said that the simple (Champion) fighter and the complex (Battlemaster) fighter will be as effective. Which probably means Obryn is right on the money when he says the maneuvers available won't be much different then cantrips.

[Kurald Galain]

Or, "OH NO! People are using their Encounter powers every Encounter! How can I stop them?!"

I have numerous concerns about this.

I concur.

First, it is my experience (and that of most players in my area) that encounter powers are what keeps 4E fights interesting. Most players (that I know) don't want to use the standard attack each round, they want to do the Cool Stuff, which is the encounter powers. So restricting those strikes me as counterproductive.

Second, if the earlier playtests were any evidence, then 5E's expertise-dice-powers are substantially weaker and less interesting than most of the good encounter powers in 4E.

[Merc_Kilsek]

We might never know exact data behind 4e sales, but it is indicative that the lead of 4e got fired every year it was in print. Rob Heinsoo, Jonathan Tweet, Bill Slaviscek, Richard Baker, Andy Collins all got laid off. We will see how well 5e is doing dependent on/if Mearls keeps his job. Though why he still has a job is a mystery to me.

Lots of reason someone could be laid off. Unless you directly know why, you're grasping as straws. Why the issue with Mearls? I don't really know the guy but what I've seen on their YouTube/Twitch videos nothing about him really strikes me that he is worthy of losing his job.


On topic; WotC maybe has time to change the DMG a bit...the PHB and the MM are set in stone due to printing and shipping concerns.
What concerns me is the interview with Mearls where he said that the simple (Champion) fighter and the complex (Battlemaster) fighter will be as effective. Which probably means Obryn is right on the money when he says the maneuvers available won't be much different then cantrips.

They work well enough together from what I've seen in the testing. The champions are not flashy at all, everything is basically just baked in. One of my players loves it, straight forward class that smashes faces.

As for maneuvers: Maneuver Save DC = 8 + double your proficiency bonus; there is a list of sixteen to draw on as you level (no idea about the final draft of course, subject to change)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

As for maneuvers: Maneuver Save DC = 8 + double your proficiency bonus; there is a list of sixteen to draw on as you level (no idea about the final draft of course, subject to change)

I like this, may use it for homebrew. I already am working on a Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade archetype for the fighter that uses maneuvers. MoI has put it on hold but I'll need to make note of the 8+Double Prof. bonus. I like it :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

I concur.

First, it is my experience (and that of most players in my area) that encounter powers are what keeps 4E fights interesting. Most players (that I know) don't want to use the standard attack each round, they want to do the Cool Stuff, which is the encounter powers. So restricting those strikes me as counterproductive.

Second, if the earlier playtests were any evidence, then 5E's expertise-dice-powers are substantially weaker and less interesting than most of the good encounter powers in 4E.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm guessing that some combination of 4E + 5E + Some New Mechanic is going to be the basis for 6E in about 6-8 years.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm guessing that some combination of 4E + 5E + Some New Mechanic is going to be the basis for 6E in about 6-8 years.

Who do you think will own D&D then?

Cause I don't see the current WotC ever being that brave.

[pwykersotz]

I concur.

First, it is my experience (and that of most players in my area) that encounter powers are what keeps 4E fights interesting. Most players (that I know) don't want to use the standard attack each round, they want to do the Cool Stuff, which is the encounter powers. So restricting those strikes me as counterproductive.

Second, if the earlier playtests were any evidence, then 5E's expertise-dice-powers are substantially weaker and less interesting than most of the good encounter powers in 4E.


Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.

Restricting special abilities makes them precious. Making them usable more often makes them expected and trivialized. Obviously there's a middle ground to be had, but I think it will be nearly impossible to get consensus on where that line belongs.

[1337 b4k4]

Incidentally, per Mearls' twitter the "4e mod" includes reducing short rest to 5 minutes.

[Kurald Galain]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm guessing that some combination of 4E + 5E + Some New Mechanic is going to be the basis for 6E in about 6-8 years.

Yes, and I predict that 6E will play on a hex grid, for obvious reasons. Also, I'd say 4-5 years, not 6-8.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Incidentally, per Mearls' twitter the "4e mod" includes reducing short rest to 5 minutes.

Cue so many people going...




http://graphicashen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mind-blown.jpg

[Merlin the Tuna]

Incidentally, per Mearls' twitter the "4e mod" includes reducing short rest to 5 minutes.I mean that's closer to how I'd play it. Honestly, healing is the only thing that I think of as needing more than a minute or two, and I'm sure I could convince myself to further cut the time down on that as well. And while it's nice to hear that the rules will endorse that, it's a pretty big shift to how the classes work that risks throwing all kinds of other things out of whack. Unless "4e mode" has a lot of other changes (many of which would have to be for specific class features), this could upend the whole ecosystem. I don't mean to say it's bad right out of the gate, but it's definitely odd.

Basically, my last experience in the playtest was as a Monk, which sucked in "regular" 5E but could be decent & reasonably fun in 4E mode. Whereas the Wizard derives almost no benefit switching to 4E mode -- and maybe would be passed up in relative worth by the Warlock, depending on how that class ends up? This seems like a weird metagame to get into, where someone invites you to a game and you need to ask what "modules" are being used before you do your character creation. Are we gonna start tacking on hex codes to indicate how a particular game actually works? "Oh, I play D&D 5E.05A3, with 4E rests mode, hex tactics mod, the survival module, and Inspiration variant 3 (Stuntspiration) from Complete Facepuncher."

This is weird.

[da_chicken]

Eh. I prefer a soft limit for a short rest. Long enough for the PCs to believe they're relatively safe and the encounter is over and they can catch their breath and their short duration spells/abilities should expire, short enough not to eat the entire day. That should be anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes, IMO, depending on circumstances.

[Kurald Galain]

Are we gonna start tacking on hex codes to indicate how a particular game actually works? "Oh, I play D&D 5E.05A3, with 4E rests mode, hex tactics mod, the survival module, and Inspiration variant 3 (Stuntspiration) from Complete Facepuncher."

I would totally buy a splatbook called "Complete Facepuncher" :smallbiggrin:

That said, while most 3E/4E DMs I know of use at least some kind of houserules, it still feels less of a unified ruleset if there are major swaths of the (5E core) rules that are considered optional.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would totally buy a splatbook called "Complete Facepuncher" :smallbiggrin:

That said, while most 3E/4E DMs I know of use at least some kind of houserules, it still feels less of a unified ruleset if there are major swaths of the (5E core) rules that are considered optional.

I think it will work best if everyone gets in the mindset of...

PHB: Players make the decisions on what options to use.

DMG: DM makes the decisiins on what options to use.

There will eventually be ban lists and such, but for a general rule... It might makes things go smoother and allow players to be diverse at the same table.

I mean, 5e is supposed to allow that sort of thing right? :smalltongue:

[Tholomyes]

Because it is wrong.

The old chestnut "opinions can't be wrong" is based off of having a personal stance on something without a definite right answer. For things that do have definite right answers, such as historical evidence about magic, there are facts and there are incorrect ideas. Calling an incorrect idea an opinion does not make it magically untouchable, it makes whoever holds that opinion misguided (provided they are interested in knowing the truth).Except it can't be an "incorrect idea" when I'm talking about my preference. Are you really so dense as to try to tell me that my personal preference is wrong? Seriously, I want to see how you worm your way into saying that MY personal preference for MY game style is wrong. Seriously, try.


If your opinion is that the comparison is valid, your opinion is wrong because the comparison is demonstratably not valid. If your opinion is based on bad math, I will show you where the math goes wrong so you can reassess. But if you hold to the no-longer-validated opinion, I don't have to respect that. I just have to acknowledge that you chose that wrong answer and have a right to be wrong (but not a right to insist you are actually correct; I don't have to lie down for your opinion to have room).Where is it demonstratably not valid? How can you prove to me that despite my claims, I actually like fighters (and other mundanes) to just be defined by their equipment? Or if it's math, where is the math? Please, do tell me how my opinion is wrong. I really would like to know. Moreover, in addition to proving my opinion is wrong, I would like you to prove to me that your notion of "Fighters should only be effective because of their equipment" isn't equally an incorrect opinion, because for all your arguments of how my stance is just an opinion and is flawed, you seem to be treating your stance as some untouchable fact that contains all truth, when, at best, it's just as much an opinion as my stance.


Then don't play D&D. D&D doesn't want that.So, it's not D&D, because it's not D&D? How much circular logic do you have to work, to say that because D&D doesn't support a playstyle where the character is emphasized more than the equipment, that it can never support this, because it's not D&D.


Your fighter is competent on their own against natural threats. Your fighter can kill a bear in a sword fight. That's ****ing amazing, I don't think people realize how terrifying an animal attack like that is. Go fighter! But when supernatural stuff comes up that can only be hurt by supernatural stuff, you don't really get to complain that you're forced to use a tool to achieve a goal. You always use a tool to achieve a goal, so you're really just complaining that you are supposed to use the right tool for the job instead of using a hammer to turn screws.

D&D is a game about men (the race) fighting against insurmountable odds in a post apocalyptic land where good and evil have marshaled actual armies. Some men choose to become supernatural monsters, some men choose to use supernatural tools, but everyone who is a hero has chosen to combat the supernatural on it's turf.I disagree. Why can we not have heroes which combat supernatural enemies while still being the primary focus, and not have the primary focus be on their equipment? There is nothing inherent to D&D or to fantasy fiction which says this must be the case, and part of the frustration for the past nearly decade and a half at "magic item marts" was based around the fact that magic items were more important than the character's innate natural abilities.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Eh. I prefer a soft limit for a short rest. Long enough for the PCs to believe they're relatively safe and the encounter is over and they can catch their breath and their short duration spells/abilities should expire, short enough not to eat the entire day. That should be anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes, IMO, depending on circumstances.

I actually like borrowing the idea of refresh scenes from Lady Blackbird: A "rest" isn't a defined by a specific period of time, but is instead defined as a short little scene of roleplaying between PCs. A good way to spend a refresh scene is to ask each other in-character questions:

"You wear a wedding ring; Are you married?"

"Fight in any major battles in the war?"

"What's your family like?"

This gets the players to flesh out their characters a bit more and get more invested in the game, which is always a plus. It also helps with pacing: You can't just say "Okay we rest for 5 minutes and move on to the next room" the players have to actually stop and take a breather.

[da_chicken]

I actually like borrowing the idea of refresh scenes from Lady Blackbird: A "rest" isn't a defined by a specific period of time, but is instead defined as a short little scene of roleplaying between PCs. A good way to spend a refresh scene is to ask each other in-character questions:

"You wear a wedding ring; Are you married?"

"Fight in any major battles in the war?"

"What's your family like?"

This gets the players to flesh out their characters a bit more and get more invested in the game, which is always a plus. It also helps with pacing: You can't just say "Okay we rest for 5 minutes and move on to the next room" the players have to actually stop and take a breather.

Forced roleplaying never works, IMX. Players that want to do it will do it whether or not you want them to. Those that don't want to do it will feel irritation or resentment for being required to do it. The absolute last thing I want out of any game is resentment.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Forced roleplaying never works, IMX. Players that want to do it will do it whether or not you want them to. Those that don't want to do it will feel irritation or resentment for being required to do it. The absolute last thing I want out of any game is resentment.

IME what players really resent is long in-character speech or multi-paragraph pre-written backstories: There are certainly players who like these things, but they're really an acquired taste. But I've yet to meet a player who chafes at simple bits of characterization here and there.

Also, I don't require every character to participate in every scene: Everyone gets the benefits of the rest so long as at least one character does a small little roleplay thing during the scene. It can be something as simple as "I yell at everyone to stop making so much racket, I'm trying to sleep here!" or "As we walk down the silent corridor, I pull the picture of my daughter out of my pocket and look at it for a while" or "After the battle is over, I meticulously wipe every spot of goblin blood off my armor." Usually at least one player has something they want to say or do. And if they don't? Then it hasn't been long enough since the previous rest.

[BigONotation]

Looking at the fighter archetypes from the alpha PHB makes me think of Nacho Libre : You gotta be kidding me. Everything you just said, is MY favourite thing to do, every day!

I'd like to point out that if you choose Champion as your inital archetype at lvl 10 you can choose a second archetype. Let that sink in, as written you can get all the features of base + Champion + (Battle Master or Eldritch Knight). That is pretty awesome.

[Sartharina]

I'd like to point out that if you choose Champion as your inital archetype at lvl 10 you can choose a second archetype. Let that sink in, as written you can get all the features of base + Champion + (Battle Master or Eldritch Knight). That is pretty awesome.

You misread it, at least compared to the basic PDF - at level 10, Champions get a second Weapon Style, making them either better switch-hitters (Great Weapon fighting+Archery, for example), or reinforcing their offense with defensive ability.

[Tholomyes]

Looking at the fighter archetypes from the alpha PHB makes me think of Nacho Libre : You gotta be kidding me. Everything you just said, is MY favourite thing to do, every day!

I'd like to point out that if you choose Champion as your inital archetype at lvl 10 you can choose a second archetype. Let that sink in, as written you can get all the features of base + Champion + (Battle Master or Eldritch Knight). That is pretty awesome.That is not what the Champion ability means at all. What it means is you get a choice of a second fighting style. Presumably, assuming you're not a switch-hitter, you have a single focus, meaning you likely will have limited options to pick up for your second fighting style. Likely the most popular one will be Defence, just for the flat +1 AC (because flat bonuses are fun, right?) with other nods being to Archery (for a backup in case of dragon or other flying thing) or, if you're sword and board, whichever of Dueling or Protection that you didn't take the first time. Please excuse me if I don't sound too excited about the whole thing.

[Person_Man]

Who do you think will own D&D then?

Hasbro. They purchased WotC for the trademarks on collectable card games (Magic the Gathering) and got D&D as an extra. For all its many faults, D&D is a very marketable brand that can pump out $10-30ish million in sales every time it prints a new edition, plus another $1-5 million a year from splat/miniatures/licensing/etc, regardless of the contents of that edition.

Hasbro is a $4 billion a year company. It owns GI Joe, Transformers, My Little Pony, Nerf, Scrabble, Monopoly, Battleship, Magic the Gathering, lots of licensing deals (movies, Star Wars toys, Sesame Street toys, etc), and probably dozens of other lines of business I'm forgetting about. Barring criminal mismanagement, it's not going under during our lifetime. So they're not going to sell off marketable brands in a crisis situation like TSR had to. And there isn't one guy who is going to strike it rich and go into semi-retirement when he's bought out like WotC did.

So unless an eccentric billionaire who grew up playing D&D decides he absolutely needs to buy the brand, its sadly staying with Hasbro for the foreseeable future.



[QUOTE=SpawnOfMorbo;17821992Cause I don't see the current WotC ever being that brave.[/QUOTE]

Bravery has nothing to do with it. D&D has entered completed its transition into corporate marketing. They will do whatever the largest number of potential customers say they want. If a sizable majority of paying customers said they wanted a race of magical Ponies in D&D, there would be one within a year. If 4E customers abandon the brand en-mass, 6E will be an attempt to recapture them, just as 5E is an attempt to recapture the 3.5 players who abandoned the brand when 4E was published.

[Demonic Spoon]

Bravery has nothing to do with it. D&D has entered completed its transition into corporate marketing. They will do whatever the largest number of potential customers say they want. If a sizable majority of paying customers said they wanted a race of magical Ponies in D&D, there would be one within a year. If 4E customers abandon the brand en-mass, 6E will be an attempt to recapture them, just as 5E is an attempt to recapture the 3.5 players who abandoned the brand when 4E was published.


how does this differ from other editions? It seems pretty natural that WotC, owned by Hasbro or not, listens to the things people don't like about D&D and tries to fix them for future editions.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Hasbro. They purchased WotC for the trademarks on collectable card games (Magic the Gathering) and got D&D as an extra. For all its many faults, D&D is a very marketable brand that can pump out $10-30ish million in sales every time it prints a new edition, plus another $1-5 million a year from splat/miniatures/licensing/etc, regardless of the contents of that edition.

Hasbro is a $4 billion a year company. It owns GI Joe, Transformers, My Little Pony, Nerf, Scrabble, Monopoly, Battleship, Magic the Gathering, lots of licensing deals (movies, Star Wars toys, Sesame Street toys, etc), and probably dozens of other lines of business I'm forgetting about. Barring criminal mismanagement, it's not going under during our lifetime. So they're not going to sell off marketable brands in a crisis situation like TSR had to. And there isn't one guy who is going to strike it rich and go into semi-retirement when he's bought out like WotC did.

So unless an eccentric billionaire who grew up playing D&D decides he absolutely needs to buy the brand, its sadly staying with Hasbro for the foreseeable future.





Bravery has nothing to do with it. D&D has entered completed its transition into corporate marketing. They will do whatever the largest number of potential customers say they want. If a sizable majority of paying customers said they wanted a race of magical Ponies in D&D, there would be one within a year. If 4E customers abandon the brand en-mass, 6E will be an attempt to recapture them, just as 5E is an attempt to recapture the 3.5 players who abandoned the brand when 4E was published.

Sorry my comments were meant to be tongue in cheek.

[Person_Man]

Sorry my comments were meant to be tongue in cheek.

Nothing to apologize about, I overreacted. Buying D&D away from Hasbro is on the top of my list if I every win the lottery. (Which would be difficult, since I don't gamble). So its sadly something that I've actually looked into, and sadly found to be impossible.




how does this differ from other editions? It seems pretty natural that WotC, owned by Hasbro or not, listens to the things people don't like about D&D and tries to fix them for future editions.

That's true, and its what good companies do in general.

The larger point I was trying to make is the overall design process for 5E appears to have been somewhat of a mess that resulted in a very muddled end product.

Imagine that you're baking a cake using the method WotC used to make 5E. Your customer base is split between people who like chocolate cake, angel food cake, and carrot cake. You start by comparing common ingredients from the three cakes. You put them together in a new recipe, and then add in one or two new ingredients that none of the previous recipes included so that you can say that your new cake is truly new. Now you want to test to see if your customers like your new cake. You don't want to give away the full recipe though, because otherwise how are you going to sell your cake? So you only release part of it, and leave out the directions for what you bake it in, the temperature you bake it at, how long you bake it, the cooling procedure, the icing, and the decorations. And then you take a survey to see how much people like each ingredient in your new cake recipe. Then it turns out that baking soda and baking powder don't test well, so you remove them from your ingredient list. But bacon and potatoes test really well, so you add them in. You put out the new recipe, add some new ingredients you want to try out, and then test the popularity of each ingredient again. You repeat this process several times. When you have a list of ingredients that's popular with a sizable portion of your customer base, you create the final recipe in secret, and add in the final baking, cooling, icing, and decorating process that no one has seen before. And the end result is that your D&D cake that resembles a KFC bowl meal with a fried egg, chocolate syrup, and sprinkles on top.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Nothing to apologize about, I overreacted. Buying D&D away from Hasbro is on the top of my list if I every win the lottery. (Which would be difficult, since I don't gamble). So its sadly something that I've actually looked into, and sadly found to be impossible.

See, that's further than I would take it.

I just want Magic of Incarnum, I would love to have the rights to that line.

But if I hit the lottery (I play once in a while, as a moment to my dead grandfather) I'll send you a PM and we can nab up D&D (I shouldn't be in total co from of something like that, it will probably burn to the ground).

[pwykersotz]

Nothing to apologize about, I overreacted. Buying D&D away from Hasbro is on the top of my list if I every win the lottery. (Which would be difficult, since I don't gamble). So its sadly something that I've actually looked into, and sadly found to be impossible.

Don't worry, Person_Man. If I ever get rich enough to buy it, I'll hire you on as a consultant. Not that I gamble either...but your chances are now doubled!

[Fwiffo86]

Don't worry, Person_Man. If I ever get rich enough to buy it, I'll hire you on as a consultant. Not that I gamble either...but your chances are now doubled!

We can call him D&D man then!

[Person_Man]

Back on topic...

List of ways Fighter can be dirt simple but still very useful:

1) Expand the list of things a Combat Maneuver (which can be used in place of any attack) can do. Shove (Bull Rush or Trip) and Grapple is a nice start, but they should add all the Pathfinder "Dirty Trick" effects, plus Disarm and Stun. Dirt simple to write and use, which the player can completely ignore if they don't care about it.

2) Fighter has the option of permanently giving up any class ability, and may instead gain an Ability Score Increase or Feat. Basically its a "Charles Atlas Superpower (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower)" class ability. You don't get magic, but through training you can be meaningfully stronger, quicker, healthier, wiser, etc. And if Feats really are fun and useful, it basically makes the Fighter the ultimate "generic" class for people to use if that's what they really want to do.

3) Fighters have "Exceptional Strength" and "Exceptional Constitution" as class abilities, giving them a maximum of 22 (instead of 20) in those ability scores.

4) Double Proficiency bonus in Athletics (making them great at Climbing/Jumping/Swimming and Combat Maneuvers.

5) Opportunity Attack includes your full attack routine (as it did in 2E), so someone who provokes one from a high level Fighter is getting 4 attacks.

6) Actual Roleplaying and Exploration abilities of some kind.

[Morty]

I maintain that the best way is to create a proper system for martial maneuvers, with different classes using it in different ways, and all the tools to let players build the kind of fantasy warrior they want. Then you make a class, or sub-class, that uses said system in a strictly limited manner - something like stances or the barbarian's rage (maybe we could finally have a barbarian class that's not superfluous). This means that the player won't have to make a tactical decision more than once per combat, instead just hitting things, but the class won't require gutting the entire non-magical combat model to accommodate for it. Sure, it'll be weaker than the full-sized warrior classes, but people who want a simple door-opened don't care about that anyway.

[Tholomyes]

Back on topic...

List of ways Fighter can be dirt simple but still very useful:

1) Expand the list of things a Combat Maneuver (which can be used in place of any attack) can do. Shove (Bull Rush or Trip) and Grapple is a nice start, but they should add all the Pathfinder "Dirty Trick" effects, plus Disarm and Stun. Dirt simple to write and use, which the player can completely ignore if they don't care about it.

2) Fighter has the option of permanently giving up any class ability, and may instead gain an Ability Score Increase or Feat. Basically its a "Charles Atlas Superpower (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower)" class ability. You don't get magic, but through training you can be meaningfully stronger, quicker, healthier, wiser, etc. And if Feats really are fun and useful, it basically makes the Fighter the ultimate "generic" class for people to use if that's what they really want to do.

3) Fighters have "Exceptional Strength" and "Exceptional Constitution" as class abilities, giving them a maximum of 22 (instead of 20) in those ability scores.

4) Double Proficiency bonus in Athletics (making them great at Climbing/Jumping/Swimming and Combat Maneuvers.

5) Opportunity Attack includes your full attack routine (as it did in 2E), so someone who provokes one from a high level Fighter is getting 4 attacks.

6) Actual Roleplaying and Exploration abilities of some kind.Some of these seem pretty good, but others, I'm not so sure on. For example, the #2 idea means that all their abilities have to priced at about the value of 'a feat'. It removes the option for greater or less powerful class features. Likewise I wouldn't mind exploration abilities, but I have never once needed or desired "roleplaying abilities". Roleplaying is something that can be done independent of the numbers and words on a character sheet, and whenever a game tries to add rules or abilites that govern roleplaying, it does more harm than good.

[Lokiare]

My thoughts on the fighter are that even if they keep it in its 'boring' form, they need to up its power significantly. Casters fight now can out damage them on a consistent basis with a combination of daily spells and cantrips. They get enough daily spells to cast 1-4 of them in each of the expected 4 average encounters in a day depending on their level. So they can if they really want out damage the fighter by an extreme margin.

To fix this the 'boring' fighter needs to gain an extra attack at every 3 levels. Meaning at level 3 they have 2 attacks at level 6 they have 3 attacks at level 9 they have 4 attacks, etc...etc... If they don't want to overwhelm the player with many extra dice rolls just split the difference and give them an extra attack every 6 levels and then increase the damage of each attack every 6 levels starting at level 3 (so that its on a different track than the extra attacks).

Once that's done we can then talk about having a complex fighter. This fighter could base all of its attacks on their basic weapon attack. They could have a random chance (or DM chosen based on how they describe their attack) of putting conditions on their targets that have no intrinsic alterations (no penalties or bonuses), but that allow them the following round to do a special maneuver using their 'dice' or 'points' or whatever mechanic they choose to put in. Once they did that special maneuver the target would lose the condition. So it might look something like this:

Best at Fighting
In addition to hitting and dealing damage like most classes fighters can induce slight openings in their opponents which allow them to perform powerful maneuvers. Anytime a fighter hits a target and rolls the highest number possible on a damage die roll on the following table for the opening that the target acquires:

1d8
1. Overwhelmed
2. Numb
3. Breathless
4. Faltering
5. Reeling
6. Shaken
7. Hesitant
8. Off-Balance

The opening lasts until the end of the fighters next turn.

Expertise Dice
The fighter gains 2 expertise dice at 3rd level when they choose this sub-class. These expertise dice can be used, expended, or burned in order to perform powerful feats of strength, dexterity, or skill fueled by their adrenaline. A 'used' dice is recovered at the end of the fighters turn. An 'expended' dice is recovered after a short rest. a 'burned' die is recovered after an extended rest. The fighter also chooses 2 maneuvers from the list below when they choose this sub-class. As they gain levels they gain more expertise dice. Some maneuvers require a minimum number of dice to be used, expended, or burned in order to function. Meaning the fighter can choose these maneuvers but not meet the requirements to use them until higher levels. A fighter gains an additional expertise die every 3 levels past 3rd so they gain an additional die at 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th levels.

Maneuvers
Maneuvers can be used in place of an attack. Many maneuvers allow you to make attacks as part of them or happen only after a successful attack has taken place.

Knock Back - Use a minimum of 1 expertise dice in order to push a target that you hit with an attack and that has the overwhelmed condition by the number of feet you roll on the dice.
Expend a minimum of 1 die in order to push a target that you hit with an attack and that has the overwhelmed condition a number of feet equal to twice what you roll on the dice.
Burn a minimum of 1 die in order to push a target that you hit with an attack and that has the overwhelmed condition a number of feet equal to three times what you roll on the dice.
The minimum you push a target is 5 feet. The maximum you can push a target is equal to your strength times 2. So if you have a 20 strength you can only push a target 40 feet using this maneuver.

Quick Attack - Use a minimum of 2 expertise dice in order to make a number of attacks on a numbed target equal to what you roll. Each time you hit instead of your normal damage you deal 1d4 damage to the target (with no additional modifiers). If you instead Expend the dice, you roll 1d6 for damage. If you instead Burn the dice, you roll 1d8 for damage. If there are multiple numbed targets in range you can split the attacks between them as you like.

Reaper Strike - Use a minimum of 1 expertise dice in order to induce an opening in a target within weapon range. You roll on the opening chart a number of times equal to your expertise dice roll and choose 1 of these openings to apply. If you Expend the dice instead you can choose 2 targets to apply openings to. If you Burn the dice instead you can choose 3 targets to apply openings to.

Targeted Strike - Use a minimum of 2 expertise dice to gain a bonus to the attack roll of attacks against a breathless target. The bonus is equal to the single highest roll of the dice. The bonus lasts until you make one attack. If you instead Expend the dice the bonus lasts until the end of your turn. If you instead Burn the dice the bonus last until the end of the encounter.

Steel Blow - Use a minimum of 2 expertise dice on a faltering target, the target loses its reaction. roll the dice, if you get a 6 the target is also slowed. If you get a 5 they are knocked prone. If you get a 5 and 6 they are both slowed and knocked prone.

Brute Hit - When you hit a reeling target you can choose to use a minimum of 3 expertise dice to deal damage equal to your normal damage plus the roll of the dice. If you Expend these dice you can deal your strength as damage an additional time for each die you expend. If you Burn these dice you can deal an extra weapon dice of damage for each dice you burned.

Overwhelming Confidence - If a creature has the shaken condition you can use a minimum of 3 expertise dice to gain temporary hit points equal to those dice roll results. All creatures lose the shaken condition. If you instead Expend the dice, you gain temporary hit points equal to twice the dice result. If you instead Burn the expended dice, you gain temporary hit points equal to three times the dice result.

Adrenaline Surge - If you caused the hesitant or off-balance condition on this turn or your last turn you may Expend an expertise dice to recover all Used dice instantly. If you instead Burn an expertise dice you can recover all Expended dice instantly. This maneuver takes an action to perform.

Pushing the Limit - If you have Used all of your dice this turn you can recover them by taking 1d6 damage per dice recovered. If you Expended all of your dice you can recover them by taking 1d8 damage per dice recovered. If you have burned all of your dice you can recover them by taking 1d10 damage per dice recovered. This maneuver takes an action to perform.

Toughness - If you expend a number of dice as a reaction you can add the highest dice to any one strength, constitution, or dexterity save as a bonus. If you instead Burn the dice you can add all of them as a bonus.

Edit: 1
Hero's Strength - If you expend a number of dice as a reaction when you are targeted by a trap or take fall damage, you can reduce the damage you take from the trap or fall by the highest dice. If you instead Burn the dice you reduce the damage by the total of all dice.

Hero's Tenacity - If you expend a number of dice as a reaction when you make a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity based skill check, you can add the highest dice to the roll. If you instead Burn the dice you can add the total of all dice to the roll.
End edit

Edit 2:
Hero's Grit - If you Use a minimum of 2 dice as a reaction when you are hit by an attacker that has the faltering or shaken openings you can add the highest roll to your AC for the attack. If you instead Expend the dice you gain the bonus to AC until the end of your next turn. If you instead Burn the dice you gain the bonus to AC until the end of the encounter.
End edit
------------------

That's just off the top of my head and 20 minutes worth of work that I didn't balance or check for errors.

[Fwiffo86]

My thoughts on the fighter are that even if they keep it in its 'boring' form, they need to up its power significantly. Casters fight now can out damage them on a consistent basis with a combination of daily spells and cantrips. They get enough daily spells to cast 1-4 of them in each of the expected 4 average encounters in a day depending on their level. So they can if they really want out damage the fighter by an extreme margin.

To fix this the 'boring' fighter needs to gain an extra attack at every 3 levels. Meaning at level 3 they have 2 attacks at level 6 they have 3 attacks at level 9 they have 4 attacks, etc...etc... If they don't want to overwhelm the player with many extra dice rolls just split the difference and give them an extra attack every 6 levels and then increase the damage of each attack every 6 levels starting at level 3 (so that its on a different track than the extra attacks).

Once that's done we can then talk about having a complex fighter. This fighter could base all of its attacks on their basic weapon attack. They could have a random chance (or DM chosen based on how they describe their attack) of putting conditions on their targets that have no intrinsic alterations (no penalties or bonuses), but that allow them the following round to do a special maneuver using their 'dice' or 'points' or whatever mechanic they choose to put in. Once they did that special maneuver the target would lose the condition. So it might look something like this:

Best at Fighting
In addition to hitting and dealing damage like most classes fighters can induce slight openings in their opponents which allow them to perform powerful maneuvers. Anytime a fighter hits a target and rolls the highest number possible on a damage die roll on the following table for the opening that the target acquires:

1d8
1. Overwhelmed
2. Numb
3. Breathless
4. Faltering
5. Reeling
6. Shaken
7. Hesitant
8. Off-Balance

The opening lasts until the end of the fighters next turn.

Expertise Dice
The fighter gains 2 expertise dice at 3rd level when they choose this sub-class. These expertise dice can be used, expended, or burned in order to perform powerful feats of strength, dexterity, or skill fueled by their adrenaline. A 'used' dice is recovered at the end of the fighters turn. An 'expended' dice is recovered after a short rest. a 'burned' die is recovered after an extended rest. The fighter also chooses 2 maneuvers from the list below when they choose this sub-class. As they gain levels they gain more expertise dice. Some maneuvers require a minimum number of dice to be used, expended, or burned in order to function. Meaning the fighter can choose these maneuvers but not meet the requirements to use them until higher levels. A fighter gains an additional expertise die every 3 levels past 3rd so they gain an additional die at 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th levels.

Maneuvers
Maneuvers can be used in place of an attack. Many maneuvers allow you to make attacks as part of them or happen only after a successful attack has taken place.

Knock Back - Use a minimum of 1 expertise dice in order to push a target that you hit with an attack and that has the overwhelmed condition by the number of feet you roll on the dice.
Expend a minimum of 1 die in order to push a target that you hit with an attack and that has the overwhelmed condition a number of feet equal to twice what you roll on the dice.
Burn a minimum of 1 die in order to push a target that you hit with an attack and that has the overwhelmed condition a number of feet equal to three times what you roll on the dice.
The minimum you push a target is 5 feet. The maximum you can push a target is equal to your strength times 2. So if you have a 20 strength you can only push a target 40 feet using this maneuver.

Quick Attack - Use a minimum of 2 expertise dice in order to make a number of attacks on a numbed target equal to what you roll. Each time you hit instead of your normal damage you deal 1d4 damage to the target (with no additional modifiers). If you instead Expend the dice, you roll 1d6 for damage. If you instead Burn the dice, you roll 1d8 for damage. If there are multiple numbed targets in range you can split the attacks between them as you like.

Reaper Strike - Use a minimum of 1 expertise dice in order to induce an opening in a target within weapon range. You roll on the opening chart a number of times equal to your expertise dice roll and choose 1 of these openings to apply. If you Expend the dice instead you can choose 2 targets to apply openings to. If you Burn the dice instead you can choose 3 targets to apply openings to.

Targeted Strike - Use a minimum of 2 expertise dice to gain a bonus to the attack roll of attacks against a breathless target. The bonus is equal to the single highest roll of the dice. The bonus lasts until you make one attack. If you instead Expend the dice the bonus lasts until the end of your turn. If you instead Burn the dice the bonus last until the end of the encounter.

Steel Blow - Use a minimum of 2 expertise dice on a faltering target, the target loses its reaction. roll the dice, if you get a 6 the target is also slowed. If you get a 5 they are knocked prone. If you get a 5 and 6 they are both slowed and knocked prone.

Brute Hit - When you hit a reeling target you can choose to use a minimum of 3 expertise dice to deal damage equal to your normal damage plus the roll of the dice. If you Expend these dice you can deal your strength as damage an additional time for each die you expend. If you Burn these dice you can deal an extra weapon dice of damage for each dice you burned.

Overwhelming Confidence - If a creature has the shaken condition you can use a minimum of 3 expertise dice to gain temporary hit points equal to those dice roll results. All creatures lose the shaken condition. If you instead Expend the dice, you gain temporary hit points equal to twice the dice result. If you instead Burn the expended dice, you gain temporary hit points equal to three times the dice result.

Adrenaline Surge - If you caused the hesitant or off-balance condition on this turn or your last turn you may Expend an expertise dice to recover all Used dice instantly. If you instead Burn an expertise dice you can recover all Expended dice instantly. This maneuver takes an action to perform.

Pushing the Limit - If you have Used all of your dice this turn you can recover them by taking 1d6 damage per dice recovered. If you Expended all of your dice you can recover them by taking 1d8 damage per dice recovered. If you have burned all of your dice you can recover them by taking 1d10 damage per dice recovered. This maneuver takes an action to perform.

Toughness - If you expend a number of dice as a reaction you can add the highest dice to any one strength, constitution, or dexterity save as a bonus. If you instead Burn the dice you can add all of them as a bonus.

Edit: 1
Hero's Strength - If you expend a number of dice as a reaction when you are targeted by a trap or take fall damage, you can reduce the damage you take from the trap or fall by the highest dice. If you instead Burn the dice you reduce the damage by the total of all dice.

Hero's Tenacity - If you expend a number of dice as a reaction when you make a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity based skill check, you can add the highest dice to the roll. If you instead Burn the dice you can add the total of all dice to the roll.
End edit

Edit 2:
Hero's Grit - If you Use a minimum of 2 dice as a reaction when you are hit by an attacker that has the faltering or shaken openings you can add the highest roll to your AC for the attack. If you instead Expend the dice you gain the bonus to AC until the end of your next turn. If you instead Burn the dice you gain the bonus to AC until the end of the encounter.
End edit
------------------

That's just off the top of my head and 20 minutes worth of work that I didn't balance or check for errors.

I'm checking how you have laid this out. In order to use the Expertise dice abilities, you must first cause one of the "openings" against your target? If that is the case, I'm not sure I can get behind this mechanic. Seems to essentially be spells that require a minor percentage chance to access, which means depending on how your dice roll, you may or may not get to use them over the course of a full day's worth of encounters. The abilities themselves, separate from the mechanic are quite interesting and I applaud their design. Its the access mechanic I'm having trouble with, unless your "openings" are separate from using the expertise dice. May just be wording difficulties.