D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Craft (Cheese)]

I noticed everyone responded directly to hamlet, but no one addressed my argument (besides hamlet).

Well, I agree with your argument: Our choices are to accept the model that one player will be doing the work while the other players sit around and do nothing in each situation (with different players for different situations, hopefully), or give everyone abilities that make them always able to contribute.

Personally, I think the latter is vastly preferable to the former.

[JoeMac307]

It really isn't. Have you ever sat around for 30 minutes while your other party members do all the work because you weren't capable of contributing in the current situation?

That is a fair point. The only thing I don't get is why does a Rogue have to be incredibly good at fighting to contribute during combat? Can't the Rogue contribute a bunch of different ways besides mowing people down with sneak attacks? (Sneaking past enemies and setting their escape routes on fire, pulling hurt allies out of melee, laying down suppressive ranged attacks, making clever use of a magic item via UMD, etc)

I think it just comes down to different styles of play, which again, I think is fine. I think it depends on the player's ability and the DM's foresight to make sure a non-combat centric Rogue still has a way to contribute during combat. Just like a combat centric Fighter should still have some way to contribute outside of combat (intimidating NPCs while they are being questioned by the Rogue, sizing up potential hirelings when building a fighting force, etc).

However, if your game is 90% tactical combat, then yeah, playing a Rogue that can't fight as well as a Fighter would suck, and playing a Fighter that has no special maneuevers/powers/abilities would suck.

Just a different approach to the game, I'm guessing.

[hamlet]

@Hamlet

Spoiler

Show

That's not what you said.

You said "If anything, the uniqueness of the fighter was killed not because "everybody else can do what he does" but because WOTC editions muddied the roles so dramatically that folks never actually understood the design goals of the original systems."

Since you also said the reason to have a Fighter is "[b]ecause the fighter is, simply put, better at physical combat than any other class in the game. The fighter fights. It's what he does, it's what he was hired for" which has not been true because "WOTC Editions muddied the roles so dramatically." Therefore, it is the failure of WOTC to design Fighters to be "the best at fighting" which makes the Fighter non-unique.

Can you reconcile your thinking presented above?

EDIT: Oh wait, I see. Your argument is actually "the Fighter is the best at Fighting but WOTC confused fans as to the truth of this." If so, your argument is empirically false so... OK?

Uhm, no. Reading comprehension failure.

Or, maybe explanation failure.

Or both.

The fighter "should" be, simply put, the best at fighting. That is what makes him unique and special. That's what makes him interesting and desirable as a class as opposed to thieves, clerics, or wizards.

The issue is that, starting really with AD&D 2.5, but really with D&D 3.x, the roles of the various classes as set out in the design of AD&D and original D&D got muddied. The thief was a lot less about being the sneak and more about, or exceptionally about rather, causing massive amounts of damage with "sneak attacks," a majorly missaplied term if I ever saw one. Almost everything that originally balanced wizards against fighters (those "annoying disadvantages" that wizards had) were utterly removed. In the end, everything that made fighters worthwhile as a class could be done, with a bit of planning, by any other class as well as or better than the fighter. The fighter, as a class, became virtually superfluous and, ever since, has been playing catchup because nobody wants to say, flat out, that D&D 3.x fudged the entire thing up.

I do then go on to say that, based on what we have now in playtest, I like the fighter. It goes back to doing what I think the fighter "should" do as I've explained above. Multiple times. I don't see any way in which the fighter is boring or unspecial compared to the other classes. Not at all. The arguments about why the fighter is such really make no sense to me at all.

THAT is what I'm saying.

It really isn't. Have you ever sat around for 30 minutes while your other party members do all the work because you weren't capable of contributing in the current situation?

Well, then you aren't actually playing things well are you? There's a difference between "not being a primary melee combatant" and "not having anything to contribute in combat" isn't there?

I've played thieves before who, if they got into a straight fight, would die within seconds, but were very able to support the group via any number of ways. Not least of which is remaining hidden until an opportune moment to strike at a crucial foe (like a leader or a spell caster) presents itself. Or taking up a sniping position. Or throwing flasks of flaming oil.

Again, just because there isn't something on the character sheet that says this doesn't mean it's not possible or that it's "boring" because others can do it to. What makes a class special may or may not be directly combat related and might not apply at every single given moment within the game. It's up to the player to apply what they have when it's appropriate and to make sure that when the opportunity arises that they do make use of the skills that make them unique to good effect.

Good games don't neccessarily have to cater to bad players.

[JoeMac307]

Good games don't neccessarily have to cater to bad players.

While I agree with your argument and your general style of play, I don't think it is fair to insinuate people who disagree are bad players. I think they just play a different game than you and me. It is not necessarily a less valid, or bad, style of play.

Who's to say if we played in their campaign, we wouldn't be clogging up the works and doing terribly stupid things because we couldn't keep track of a bunch of different special powers that their type of Fighter would have, and we would be viewed as bad players?

Simply put, let's not get nasty here if we can avoid it.

As usual, edited to fix some typos.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well, then you aren't actually playing things well are you? There's a difference between "not being a primary melee combatant" and "not having anything to contribute in combat" isn't there?

I've played thieves before who, if they got into a straight fight, would die within seconds, but were very able to support the group via any number of ways. Not least of which is remaining hidden until an opportune moment to strike at a crucial foe (like a leader or a spell caster) presents itself. Or taking up a sniping position. Or throwing flasks of flaming oil.

I wasn't really talking about combat.

Go ahead, just *try* to make that important Bluff roll against the King with your -3 CHA and no skill ranks...

[Ashdate]

I'm not, at all, railing against 5th edition design at this point. I'm talking specifically about the, to me, unfathomable view of a huge number of fans who think the fighter is boring, un-unique, uninteresting, and not good. I've been very specific about that.

I would suggest that rather than assume that this "huge number of fans" are somehow wrong, that you understand where they're coming from.

Characters have become a lot more complex (mechanically!) since 3e was introduced. More importantly, the internet has dramatically changed the way people play D&D, thanks to the availability of optimization guides and forums like this one.

I think one of the golden rules of game design that 3/3.5e (unfortunately) showed is that the class with more flexible options is going to be more powerful in OR out of combat. Not everyone will experience this! I played 2e and 3e for years, including playing with players who could not comprehend that maybe the 3.5 Wizard was inherently "more powerful" than the 3.5 Fighter, despite all the evidence on the Internet to prove otherwise. Some players (god bless them) don't see an edition of D&D as a pile of mechanics. They see it as escapism where they can pretend to be a gnome, where Unearthed Arcana bloodlines are something they want to take because it sounds cool

(Censored for optimizers: )

Spoiler

Show

She was playing a cleric. Take that full spell-casting progression!

If you thought the 5e fighter was unique, interesting, and good, then great! The early 5e playtest has delivered to you a fighter you'll enjoy playing.

For the "huge number of fans" who see the fighter as a narrowly focused character which will rely on DM whim and improvisation to feel "special" next to some of the other characters presented however, this feels like a slap in the face. This may not be the fighter (as presented)'s fault! Keep in mind that the "Caves of Chaos" presented are not a great reflection of the strength of the fighter, mostly due to the vast majority of monsters have about half as many hit points as the fighter's average damage. The fact that the fighter is "the best at fighting" doesn't mean much if the Cleric of Pelor (who is, let's pretend, average at fighting) is still one-shotting everything.

Wizards of the Coast also keep going on and on about all these magical optional add-on doodads that DMs can add to the game to make everyone happy, but right now exist in some sort of design, thought bubble until they actually roll some out.

You're also coming off of two editions, one where the fighter was given multiple feats to customize how they want to play, and another where the fighter was designed primarily to protect allies rather than cleave monsters in half, and given multiple powers and abilities to do so, along with associated mechanics (such as grabbing) that are absent from the current playtest.

Surely then, you can see how people (who care about the mechanics, despite there being more to the game than the mechanics) see the return to the "2e fighter" as a bit of a let down.

[Seerow]

Hamlet, simply put the big flaw in your argument is that "best at fighting" isn't going to be accomplished with a simple class. Ever. They could give a Fighter +3million to damage and auto hit on all attacks, and we could still make a convincing argument that the Wizard is better at combat because he has actual options and can deal with situations where melee damage doesn't work.

That's probably the single biggest problem with Fighters. They're advertised as being the best at fighting, but fighting isn't just dishing damage. It's about having mobility, defenses, action denial, debuffing, minion clearing, and I could probably make this list go on. Being able to do solid reliable damage at melee range is an aspect of Fighting, but it isn't all that Fighting is. The Fighter was really bad at all of the other things in 3e, and looks to be more of the same in 5e.

When people talk about wanting combat options/maneuvers, they mean they want these issues shored up. I want my Fighter to actually be the most durable guy on the battlefield. Not be outclassed in both AC and HP by a half dozen classes, and lack every other defense that is used at mid-high levels. I want my Fighter to have the mobility to be able to use his melee combat against level appropriate enemies, rather than relying on them to stand and fight. Traditionally the Fighter in his heavy armor is one of the least mobile classes in the game, this goes completely against what is necessary for melee combat to work.




Of course, that's just the combat aspect. That's just me saying "Okay Fighter is supposed to be the best at fighting... well he's not". Out of combat he's even more lacking. His entire out of combat skill set consists of +3 to 3 skills. His attributes are weighted towards strength and con, two of the least useful attributes for non-combat situations (as opposed to dex, int, or charisma, which are all typically much more useful out of combat). Even some of the Fighters' minor utilities from 3.5 have been removed. It used to be that the Fighter at high levels got absurdly strong. We're talking lifting and throwing several tons strong. That could be used out of combat to accomplish some interesting things. In 5e, carrying capacity is 10*str score, rather than scaling multiplicitively like it did in 3.5. That combined with a lower attribute cap makes for weaker fighters. Similarly, in 3.5 Fighters could jump ridiculous distances, helping somewhat with their utility. In 5e, jump distance has been normalized and this has been taken away.

We're looking at a class who in combat is NOT the best, but is in fact only middling, and generally good only at one specific area of combat. This class has nothing that is a part of the class to do out of combat, to an even worse degree than there was in previous editions where this was a serious problem. Yes, an individual player can contribute out of combat while playing the Fighter, but while playing any other class he could do so and likely be more effective because he has actual abilities and skills that are intended to help there.

[hamlet]

While I agree with your argument and your general style of play, I don't think it is fair to insinuate people who disagree are bad players. I think they just play a different game than you and me. It is not necessarily a less valid, or bad, style of play.

Who's to say if we played in their campaign, we wouldn't be clogging up the works and doing terribly stupid things because we couldn't keep track of a bunch of different special powers that their type of Fighter would have, and we would be viewed as bad players?

Simply put, let's not get nasty here if we can avoid it.

As usual, edited to fix some typos.

I wasn't actually trying to get nasty. I'm responding from the perspective that, as a player learning how to play 20 years ago, anybody who ever uttered the phrase "I can't actually do anything here!" was, flat out, a bad player. It was not the job of the rules, DM, other players, or God Himself, to show you what to do or give you things to do during any given situation. It was YOUR job, as a player, to figure out what, if anything, you could contribute to the success of the party even if, or especially if really, that didn't involve any of the abilities written down on your character sheet.

I was not, in any concious way, trying to call people objectively bad players, here. Merely pointing out that from the perspective of somebody who cut their teeth on older editions, any such assertion by a player would have been seen as a symptom of inexperience at best, and just flat out bad play generally.

I'm sorry if anybody actually got offended by my remark.

I'll respond to Ashdate in a separate post in a few mintues.

[JoeMac307]

Characters have become a lot more complex (mechanically!) since 3e was introduced. More importantly, the internet has dramatically changed the way people play D&D, thanks to the availability of optimization guides and forums like this one.

I think one of the golden rules of game design that 3/3.5e (unfortunately) showed is that the class with more flexible options is going to be more powerful in OR out of combat.

This is totally the crux of the issue. There was a time long ago before the internet where "optimization" was seen as "gaming the system" or "being a munchkin", but now it is the be all and end all of gaming for many players.

To that I say, to each their own.

This is the impossible problem that WOTC is trying to solve, appealing to these two diametrically opposed views of gaming at the same exact time. I wish them luck.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I noticed everyone responded directly to hamlet, but no one addressed my argument (besides hamlet).

Well, your argument was far less impassioned and far more coherent, so where's the fun in that?

Rambling Response

Spoiler

Show

Anyhoo, the fact that WoyC recognized the Decker Problem early on is a point in its favor. AD&D, like FASA Shadowrun, went by a "Party of Experts" model in which each team member had one thing they did very well and could do little else; therefore they all had to work together to get through the adventure. Unfortunately, play revealed that not only is it not optimal to have 4 people sit around while 1 person does something every game, this design means that if someone doesn't take one of the roles (i.e. the Cleric) then the game doesn't run at all without substantial houseruling.

WotC's solution in 3e, generally speaking, was to take the major area of gameplay -- fighting -- and make it so everyone could participate. For Rogues this meant useful Sneak Attacks, for Clerics it meant Spontaneous Heals (and more combat buffs) and for Wizards it meant more spell slots. Unfortunately, WotC failed to compensate the Fighter by giving him anything to do in any other area of the game; as a result, the Fighter's raison d'être was lost particularly as Power Creep provided classes that not only could fight as well as a Fighter, but do other things as well. The fact that Rogues became "silent killers" instead of Thieves was merely a symptom of this larger adjustment.

4e fixed this problem, by and large, by splitting up "fighting" into sub-divisions (e.g. Defending, Striking, Controlling, Leader-ing) and making each Class specialized in one of those sub-areas. This returned co-operative gameplay to combat and gave you a reason to have Fighters. Arguably, the Fighter lost out because there were multiple Defender Classes but, in practice, multiple Defenders in a party need not step on each others' toes. The larger problem in 4e was that the non-combat portion of the game atrophied since WotC did not want to return to the Decker Problem; traps and locks were not particularly strong and could be bypassed by other classes (if somewhat less effectively) but more importantly they fit badly into the Encounter-centric gameplay.

With this in mind, did Thieves need to become combat monsters to work in D&D? No, but the idea of Rogues-as-DPR has cemented in the minds of modern gamers because of 3.X and its successors and so it is unlikely that will stop. IMHO, Rogues could have instead become "melee controllers" -- capable of dirty tricks that hindered or incapacitated opponents so that Fighters would have a freer hand at handling the brutes. You saw a bit of this in 4e but this controlling element was inevitably sidelined by their impressive Sneak Attack damage.

All that said, it is important to remember that mechanics matter: if some classes rely on improvising while others can improvise or use mechanics, the strictly improvisational classes will typically be weaker/less desirable unless granted superior improvisational mechanical abilities (e.g. oWoD Mages).

EDIT:
@Hamlet -- This is really apropos my parting comment

Spoiler

Show

I wasn't actually trying to get nasty. I'm responding from the perspective that, as a player learning how to play 20 years ago, anybody who ever uttered the phrase "I can't actually do anything here!" was, flat out, a bad player. It was not the job of the rules, DM, other players, or God Himself, to show you what to do or give you things to do during any given situation. It was YOUR job, as a player, to figure out what, if anything, you could contribute to the success of the party even if, or especially if really, that didn't involve any of the abilities written down on your character sheet.

20 years ago, nobody could do anything outside of improvisation. Assuming AD&D (2nd Edition) the only people with actual useful mechanics were Casters (strictly limited by low spell-slots and easy disruption) and Thieves (d% for abilities as exotic as "Listen") and some "prestige" classes (e.g. Rangers, Paladins) which were extremely difficult to get using the default ability score generator (3d6, 6 times). In combat the only "mechanics" anyone was given was roll vs. AC; if you wanted to trip a charging ogre you needed to convince the DM it was something you could do.

Back then, anyone who said "I can't actually do anything here" basically missed the point of the game -- the numbers on your sheet won't let you do anything, so you have to convince the DM that you can do something. It was roughly equivalent to showing up to a 3e game with a Fighter and spending all your time elaborately describing tripping attacks without taking any of the appropriate feats.

However, that is not now, and has not been, the way D&D has been played since 3.0. Improvisation is no longer at the heart of the game: standard interactions are governed by rules to give Players a sense as to what they can reasonably do and how to get better at doing it. In AD&D, a Human Fighter trying to balance on a branch would have as hard a time doing so at 10th level as he would at 1st level -- it was a straight DEX check and aside from NWP, there was little mechanically the Player could do to make the Human Fighter better at balancing. In 3e, if you wanted your Human Fighter to be better at balancing you would put points in Balance; if a Player wanted to make a Human "Fighter" good at balancing on branches he could take a level of Rogue and put a lot more skill points into it. There was no need to wheedle bonus points out of the DM to have a chance at success; the Player already knew approximately how likely he was to succeed when he set out on a course of action. IMHO, this was a big improvement.

So yes Hamlet, 20 years ago your comment would be correct but it simply is not true for D&D today or any number of similar rules-heavy RPGs that exist today. It is no more appropriate to lambast people for not accepting "improvisation" as a reason that the 5e Fighter is a worthwhile class to select then it would have been to lambast a AD&D Fighter for not taking Trip Feats before trying to trip an ogre. Different rules for different games.

[Seerow]

I wasn't actually trying to get nasty. I'm responding from the perspective that, as a player learning how to play 20 years ago, anybody who ever uttered the phrase "I can't actually do anything here!" was, flat out, a bad player. It was not the job of the rules, DM, other players, or God Himself, to show you what to do or give you things to do during any given situation. It was YOUR job, as a player, to figure out what, if anything, you could contribute to the success of the party even if, or especially if really, that didn't involve any of the abilities written down on your character sheet.

I was not, in any concious way, trying to call people objectively bad players, here. Merely pointing out that from the perspective of somebody who cut their teeth on older editions, any such assertion by a player would have been seen as a symptom of inexperience at best, and just flat out bad play generally.

I'm sorry if anybody actually got offended by my remark.

I'll respond to Ashdate in a separate post in a few mintues.

The problem comes when you have one character who has 50-100 things written on his character sheet that can be applicable to a non-combat situation, while another character has none.

Yes, the Fighter might be able to think of something that works, and then convince the DM that it works, and solve the problem. Or the guy with the dozens of abilities just uses one of those abilities, and it works.

There are a lot of gamers out there who don't want to play "Mother May I" or "Magical Tea Party" with the Dungeon Master. Incidentally, there's a strong cross section of these players who also want to play a martial class. You can see where that becomes a problem quickly.

If you want to play a freeform game where everyone can think up creative solutions regardless of what their character sheet says, that's fine. I don't even mind if 5e has a rules light option where each of the classes gets stripped down to where the Fighter/Rogue are now (say Wizards and Clerics get dropped down to a single at will spell, that they now have to use creatively in the same way that Fighters have to use their stuff creatively), and let groups who prefer that method play that way.

What I absolutely will not ever agree with in any situation is a system where at the core you have two classes, one with a lot of abilities that are applicable to all situations, and one with almost no abilities that are applicable to very specific situations. Straight up that is horrible design that is nothing short of wanking to caster superiority. I expect the core rules to be balanced and consistent in the sorts of abilities available to characters. If we have a Wizard with hundreds of spells usable in and out of combat, I expect Fighters/Rogues to have similar numbers of tricks which can be applied both in and out of combat. If 5e can't give this, I won't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[JoeMac307]

That's probably the single biggest problem with Fighters. They're advertised as being the best at fighting, but fighting isn't just dishing damage. It's about having mobility, defenses, action denial, debuffing, minion clearing, and I could probably make this list go on. Being able to do solid reliable damage at melee range is an aspect of Fighting, but it isn't all that Fighting is. The Fighter was really bad at all of the other things in 3e, and looks to be more of the same in 5e.

I think this depends on how tactical combat is in your campaign. If you are play TOTM-style, or even just quickly sketching out battlegrounds, then this is less of an issue, IMHO. But if you have full-on minis with detailed battle sites and lots of tactical things going on, then yeah, this is a big problem.

(Point being, trying to make the feel / style of older editions mesh with the feel / style of newer editions seems impossible, but maybe WOTC can pull it off. I'm hoping they can)

[Seerow]

I think this depends on how tactical combat is in your campaign. If you are play TOTM-style, or even just quickly sketching out battlegrounds, then this is less of an issue, IMHO. But if you have full-on minis with detailed battle sites and lots of tactical things going on, then yeah, this is a big problem.

(Point being, trying to make the feel / style of older editions mesh with the feel / style of newer editions seems impossible, but maybe WOTC can pull it off. I'm hoping they can)

Even in Theater of the Mind or a quick sketch, if your Fighter moves 20ft before attacking and the enemy can move 40ft, you're never going to catch up and that's the end of it. In theater of the mind it doesn't matter what the exact position of the enemies are, you're not getting more than 2 or 3 minions with cleave, while the Wizard's 40ft diameter fire ball will fry many more of them. Theater of the Mind especially doesn't matter when talking about defenses, because it doesn't matter what the grid looks like, when the Fighter doesn't have spell resistance, elemental resistances, damage reduction, temp hp, good saves, and immunities, while all of the casters and level appropriate enemies do, the Fighter is not the most durable person on the battlefield. In fact, he's pretty much the squishiest.


Theater of the Mind is not a way to change the problem of "Fighters aren't particularly good at combat". It doesn't matter if you use a grid or not, if your Fighter is only good at one out of 8 aspects of combat, while there are other classes out there that are good at all of them, your Fighter is not good at combat. Period. Now when there's other classes comparable to him in the one aspect he IS good at, then it's just adding insult to injury. (And for what it's worth, if you give the Moradin Cleric the same weapon/theme as the Fighter, his average damage is very similar)

[obryn]

No. You're not actually listening.

The fighter is not without special abilities. His special ability is, and should be, that he is the best at fighting. He's the guy who's best at getting into the thick of furball melees and coming out alive on the other end. He's the guy who gets between the bad guys and good guys. He "stands between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk . . ."

That is not "no special abilities." That is very specific.

I've seen you answer 3 people that we're not really listening. There's a common factor in all three of these failed communications. :)

(1) The Fighter is not currently the best at fighting, if you take everything that goes into a fight. Saying "I hit it with a sword" a bunch of times does not make you awesome at fighting.
(2) He might stand between the monsters and squishies, but without restrictive terrain like dungeon corridors, he can't actually do anything about it.
(3) If the Fighter is supposed to be the best at fighting, he needs some flexible tactical options. Flexibility is power.

I was not, in any concious way, trying to call people objectively bad players, here. Merely pointing out that from the perspective of somebody who cut their teeth on older editions, any such assertion by a player would have been seen as a symptom of inexperience at best, and just flat out bad play generally.

Erm. So did I? I started playing in the early 80's, myself, so I don't think that your perspective is necessary and expected in someone who's been playing this long.

-O

[hamlet]

I would suggest that rather than assume that this "huge number of fans" are somehow wrong, that you understand where they're coming from.

I understand the argument. I merely do not grant it validity. It's a specous argument that misses a great deal itself and relies on a priori reasoning. I am here disagreeing with it.

Characters have become a lot more complex (mechanically!) since 3e was introduced. More importantly, the internet has dramatically changed the way people play D&D, thanks to the availability of optimization guides and forums like this one.

I would argue that characters have become a lot more mechanically complex needlessly. I look at 3.x and do not see, at least half the time, what the extra complexity really gets you in the end. More rules, mostly. More is not always more. Sometimes, it's just more.

Maybe, just maybe, simplicity should be a design goal. Rather than scads of rules, maybe we should look at what actually made prior editions great for decades. Simplicity. Bare frameworks upon which to build. Fewer rules and more rulings. The fighter works very well within its given framework.

I think one of the golden rules of game design that 3/3.5e (unfortunately) showed is that the class with more flexible options is going to be more powerful in OR out of combat. Not everyone will experience this! I played 2e and 3e for years, including playing with players who could not comprehend that maybe the 3.5 Wizard was inherently "more powerful" than the 3.5 Fighter, despite all the evidence on the Internet to prove otherwise. Some players (god bless them) don't see an edition of D&D as a pile of mechanics. They see it as escapism where they can pretend to be a gnome, where Unearthed Arcana bloodlines are something they want to take because it sounds cool

Where you see "flexible options" I see additional complexity that doesn't add much to the experience. I also see a distressing tendancy towards "if it isn't on a character's sheet it can't be done" and the need for everybody to have something special and unique to contribute at all times. Egalitarianism taken to an absurd extreme really, that.

And I've played AD&D with people who cut their teeth on 3.x and, suddenly being exposed to the limitations on wizards, were astonished that suddenly wizards weren't the "fix all" to every situation. They weren't inherently more powerful than fighters, and in fact, they were critically vulnerable to the fighters' greatest strengths. It was a major eye opener to them. As has been said repeatedly here on this board, the reason that 3.x and beyond wizards were more powerful, objectively so, is because the 3.x designers removed most of what limited wizards (and clerics, actually) and removed much of what made fighters powerful (though this gets a littly hairy in the analysis). It's an artificially created problem that is flasly retroactively applied to all D&D editions. The problem didn't exist, or at least was not really prevalent, prior to 3.x. It's a problem that they created and fixing it is actually fairly simple, but something that will not (can not) be done now because the expectations of the game are so fabulously different that doing that would effectively doom the edition.

(Censored for optimizers: )

Spoiler

Show

She was playing a cleric. Take that full spell-casting progression!

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I know that it's a 3.x thing, but I'm not sure what you mean here in context.

If you thought the 5e fighter was unique, interesting, and good, then great! The early 5e playtest has delivered to you a fighter you'll enjoy playing.

Yeah, it has. And I enjoy it as is. And hell, I can actually fix up the healing thing if I want to. But, in the end . . . what have I got? The very first iteration of playtest rules. A badly disguised alpha.

And, in the end, at least judging by Mearls' last article on the subject, the edition is going to "fix" things so that what I liked about things is going to go away and this will be, again, another edition that I won't be playing.

Sure, I can stick with the games I like, but it's kind of annoying when the hobby I grew up on walks away from me and I'm left holding 20+ year old product, and especially annoying when people point out "problems" with the new edition that looked to me to be steps in the right direction.

Wizards of the Coast also keep going on and on about all these magical optional add-on doodads that DMs can add to the game to make everyone happy, but right now exist in some sort of design, thought bubble until they actually roll some out.

Speaking as a died-in-the-wool cynic, I doubt very much that these things will ever really escape the thought bubble stage and see the light of day in a form that makes any sense to the people they're supposed to appeal to.

Surely then, you can see how people (who care about the mechanics, despite there being more to the game than the mechanics) see the return to the "2e fighter" as a bit of a let down.

Sure. I can see that. I disagree with it. Extensively.

That is, after all, the purpose of a playtest, to take the measure of the system and voice your opinion on it, right? I'm permitted and even encouraged to do that?

Or is this really just a situation like a lot of people found in the Pathfinder playtests where their opinion was encouraged, as long as it fell within certain parameters?




Seerow: Suffice to say, I disagre with pretty much every word you just wrote. Completely.

[Seerow]

Seerow: Suffice to say, I disagre with pretty much every word you just wrote. Completely.

That's nice. Unfortunately every word I wrote is true, so disagreeing with it doesn't make your argument valid or right in the least.

[hamlet]

That's nice. Unfortunately every word I wrote is true, so disagreeing with it doesn't make your argument valid or right in the least.

"Every word [you] wrote is true"? You sure that "true" doesn't start with a capital "T"?

[Seerow]

"Every word [you] wrote is true"? You sure that "true" doesn't start with a capital "T"?

Not sure I get your reference here. But I note you still haven't refuted anything I said, just stated you blanket disagree with it, because it doesn't agree with your flawed arguments.

[hamlet]

I've seen you answer 3 people that we're not really listening. There's a common factor in all three of these failed communications. :)

(1) The Fighter is not currently the best at fighting, if you take everything that goes into a fight. Saying "I hit it with a sword" a bunch of times does not make you awesome at fighting.
(2) He might stand between the monsters and squishies, but without restrictive terrain like dungeon corridors, he can't actually do anything about it.
(3) If the Fighter is supposed to be the best at fighting, he needs some flexible tactical options. Flexibility is power.
-O

1) The fighter, actually, is the best at fighting. Or, in my experience he is. Yeah, the clerics can stand shoulder to shoulder with him most times, but in terms of pure damage dealt, the fighter wins nine times out of ten (assuming he hits).

2) Eh? Did you not see the map of the Caves of Chaos? What, precisely, is stopping you from using the narrow cave mouths and passages as chokepoints to funnell and trap enemies? What stopped you, precisely, from using the bed in the bugbear leader's chamber along with the cover rules to provide a good place from which to make a last stand?

3) Flexibility is not neccessarily (or even significantly) a function of having more concrete rules defining actions.

[hamlet]

{{scrubbed}}

[Seerow]

{{scrubbed}}

[Kurald Galain]

So . . . again . . . it boils down to because the fighter doesn't have special unique snowflake status on paper, he is therefore horribly boring?

No, it boils down to this. If the fighter consists of making something up and asking the DM for permission, then why on earth am I paying WOTC a lot of money for that game? I can do rules-light for free and without a 300 page rulebook.

[Oracle_Hunter]

2) Eh? Did you not see the map of the Caves of Chaos? What, precisely, is stopping you from using the narrow cave mouths and passages as chokepoints to funnell and trap enemies? What stopped you, precisely, from using the bed in the bugbear leader's chamber along with the cover rules to provide a good place from which to make a last stand?

Out of curiosity, how did your Fighter survive wave attacks while standing at that checkpoint? Lack of Attacks of Opportunity and all that.

The point, rather, is that Fighters are no better at defending squishies than clerics or anyone else with high AC. In fact, why not put a Cleric in Plate there instead, since he could at least heal himself while physically blocking a 5' corridor.

Compare with the 4e Fighter who not only could intercept enemies moving adjacent to him (Opportunity Attacks) but would actually stop their movement if he hit -- something that no non-Defender could do, and, IIRC, something that few, if any, other Defenders could do. He was a better choice for guarding squishies precisely because he could do it even when not at a natural chokepoint -- a beefy Cleric trying to do the same thing would not be nearly as effective.

[JoeMac307]

I often find that these arguments quickly get petty and repetitive, and completely entrenched, with neither side willing to see the other side's point of view, or even concede that the other side is anything less than a moron.

I see one side insinuating the other side are "bad players" and that side then turn around and state everything they say is "true" like their word is law or something.

Well, at least people are passionate about D&D. That, if nothing else, bodes well for the future of the game.

[hamlet]

{{scrubbed}}

[obryn]

1) The fighter, actually, is the best at fighting. Or, in my experience he is. Yeah, the clerics can stand shoulder to shoulder with him most times, but in terms of pure damage dealt, the fighter wins nine times out of ten (assuming he hits).
2) Eh? Did you not see the map of the Caves of Chaos? What, precisely, is stopping you from using the narrow cave mouths and passages as chokepoints to funnell and trap enemies? What stopped you, precisely, from using the bed in the bugbear leader's chamber along with the cover rules to provide a good place from which to make a last stand?
3) Flexibility is not neccessarily (or even significantly) a function of having more concrete rules defining actions.

(1) I agree that he clearly does more damage with a simple attack before spells are added into the equation and that he has a lot of HPs. I disagree that this makes him better at "fighting" because "I hit it with my sword" is not the only component of "fighting."

(2) Of course? But now your entire ability to defend your party is terrain- (and specifically dungeon-) dependent. There's nothing intrinsic to the class that helps with this, as opposed to (say) a wizard's spells helping them wizard. Your defending capability can be bypassed by adding an extra 5' to the corridor width, fighting in a room instead of a hallway, or ... simply being outside.

(3) Fighter 1 can make attacks and improv. Fighter 2 can make attacks, trip people, push them around, get free attacks at people who ignore him, and improv. I'd say Fighter 2 is better able to do his job. It's the same situation with wizards - is a wizard more powerful with a single Magic Missile, or Magic Missile AND Sleep AND Comprehend Languages?

-O

[Seerow]

I often find that these arguments quickly get petty and repetitive, and completely entrenched, with neither side willing to see the other side's point of view, or even concede that the other side is anything less than a moron.

I see one side insinuating the other side are "bad players" and that side then turn around and state everything they say is "true" like their word is law or something.

Well, at least people are passionate about D&D. That, if nothing else, bodes well for the future of the game.

Everything I stated IS true from a mechanically objective viewpoint. If you disagree, go back and actually argue the points rather than trying to say it's just repetitive argument for the sake of argument.

I don't like going through the trouble of making an argument then being ignored by people who want to just say that I am wrong without giving any tangible reason why. If you want to make the case that the Fighter is in fact the best at all aspects of combat, make that case. I'd love to see the case given that there is no mechanical basis for it. All the Fighter has going for him is high hit points and high damage. That is one small aspect of combat. Hell you could argue the high hit points is just a part of defense, which is an area the Fighter is objectively terrible at because he lacks the defenses at mid-high levels that other characters do have.

[hamlet]

Out of curiosity, how did your Fighter survive wave attacks while standing at that checkpoint? Lack of Attacks of Opportunity and all that.

The point, rather, is that Fighters are no better at defending squishies than clerics or anyone else with high AC. In fact, why not put a Cleric in Plate there instead, since he could at least heal himself while physically blocking a 5' corridor.

Compare with the 4e Fighter who not only could intercept enemies moving adjacent to him (Opportunity Attacks) but would actually stop their movement if he hit -- something that no non-Defender could do, and, IIRC, something that few, if any, other Defenders could do. He was a better choice for guarding squishies precisely because he could do it even when not at a natural chokepoint -- a beefy Cleric trying to do the same thing would not be nearly as effective.

At my table, the fighter managed, with help, to hold off a "swarm" of about 25 foes (they really managed to step in it an alert the entire hobgoblin group at once) by planting themselves firmly in a narrow passage doorway with the fighter and "knight cleric" standing side by side. The fighter still had only chainmail at the time.

The fighter, with a good initiative, stayed precisely where he was and essentially one shot killed anything that came close to him. The knight cleric, after we explained to her player that the shield special ability was actually quite powerful if used properly, did very little than keep that shield at the ready to defend the fighter and anybody else who became a target for missile fire throughout the battle. The rest stayed back and lobbed missiles and magic over the front line. In about 12 or so rounds, the combat was done and the party was victorious because they used good tactics and relied on the strengths of each party member.

There was, at no time, that the fighter felt ill used or "boring." I'd actually post the player's actual response from an email he sent me a while ago, but suffice to say it would not go over well in this forum.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The fighter, with a good initiative, stayed precisely where he was and essentially one shot killed anything that came close to him. The knight cleric, after we explained to her player that the shield special ability was actually quite powerful if used properly, did very little than keep that shield at the ready to defend the fighter and anybody else who became a target for missile fire throughout the battle. The rest stayed back and lobbed missiles and magic over the front line. In about 12 or so rounds, the combat was done and the party was victorious because they used good tactics and relied on the strengths of each party member.

But... why didn't the kobolds dart in, attack, and then step back for the next kobold to do the same? The Fighter should have been taking over a dozen attacks each round and could only kill 1 (if Readied Attacks are permitted) without moving out from his position.

Or did the Kobolds use really bad tactics?

[obryn]

The knight cleric, after we explained to her player that the shield special ability was actually quite powerful if used properly, did very little than keep that shield at the ready to defend the fighter and anybody else who became a target for missile fire throughout the battle.

You knew that the Cleric can do that only 1/round, right?

-O