classes and niche protection

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Raleel

The Lemon LeCroix of Mythras
Moderator
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
19,304
so, they aren't necessarily exclusive, but you see them together a lot. the 5e sneak attack thread makes me think about this.

It always seemed odd that stealth and sneak attacks were gated behind a class, and there was nothing there to really say "this is why". like.. why are they the only people that sneak and stab?

the sneak attack itself is always about more damage. that's great and all, but really, that's sort of just because that's the only axis that the game works on. If you add some other parameters to work with, sneak attacks can be a lot more. Not to hold up mythras on a pedestal here, but sneak attacks don't do more damage - they deny defense (you are surprised), and you get an extra special effect. This might mean you get bypass armor and maximize damage and you get a lot of damage. It might also mean bypass armor and choose location head, which lets you get the garrotte on them and keep them silent.

anyhow, that one in particular sticks in my craw, right there next to 1/day or 1/encounter powers.

this isn't just about stealth but other ones as well. Maybe i just needed to rant a bit, because I was going to start a discussion and i just kind of ranted ;)
 
In fairness, 5e lets anyone hide, and they at least get advantage to hit (which gives a slight increase in average damage since a critical hit is more likely). Rogues are just much better at it.

What are the other ones that bother you? There are a few class paths in D&D 5e that I don't care for, but I like the principle of distinct archetypes in general.
 
The issue I've always had is how magical item reliant the Fighter types had as their damage plateau'd, pre-3e (Because 3.x on the other Fighting Men get some boosters, Rage and Smite.) I don't mind Rogues/Thieves getting a precision strike ability, after all, they're low armour, medium damage without it. They're the Alpha Strikers of the D&D set. But Fighter types are, or should be, the combat specialists. They too should have a damage boost that increases with experience, just something perhaps a little more... Reliable?
 
well, to be fair, 5e is the least bad at this, except for 13th age maybe, which doesn't give non-fighters a bonus on sneak attacking, but it also doesn't really make rogues sneak (or even encourage it). rogues in 13th age are more highly mobile fighters, and it's less about niche protection and more about "lets do <class> things". 13th age does a nice job of making skills ore interesting too - backgrounds like "creeped around the local woods" makes for an interesting anyone. Maybe somewhat surprisingly, I like 13th age, and the classes bother me less. They tend to not be so focused around a role in the group, perhaps, and the skills are very loose.

I think archetypes are fine, but they are sort of a shorthand. My own ideas often don't fit very well into any of them, and that can be quite frustrating. Then they come up with subclasses to try and cover that, and they maybe are better, but still not quite right.

I've been seeing some of this, and some issues with branding/labelling with some new players "I'll make an arcane trickster because I want to be that kind of thing!" and their idea of an arcane trickster doesn't mesh very well with the current "rogue, with a dash of mage", when what they want is "mage, but sneaky, and named arcane trickster". Sure, it's an easy fix, and I even suggested it 2 weeks ago to a player, but it can be troublesome if the GM and the player are not in close communication about the character.

and, let me be honest, I like a lot of stuff in 5e mechanically. I run it for the local kids. When my family gets their poop in a group, I'll run it for them (though I'm sort of wanting to run Shrine of the Traitor Gods which uses a very simplified Mythras). But, as a forever GM, I have a very hard time with classes when I play. It feels like a striaght jacket.

man, I am rambling.
 
I think I get it. Once I grokked what you can do with BRP type games and how it all works out moment to moment, session to session it made it really tough for me to see modern D&D class-based design as anything but a straight jacket (no matter how many sub-classes, prestige classes, and multiclasses you throw in there), something always seems just a bit kludgy or out of sync with my wishes.

Not to say that I don't appreciate the simplicity of the design in B/X, or DCC as a fun "beer and pretzels" RPG, but it's never quite as satisfying for long term play.

When I have my druthers, I say just give me some professions, some cultural skills and some free skill points and I'll figure out the rest and grow into whatever the campaign shapes my character into.
 
Hmm, in other contexts people argue that constraints promote creativity.

To an extent, I'm sorry that there aren't more independent class-like templates that advance; actual class takes over as levels advance while race and background which are significant at low levels become somewhat irrelevant. This might let you get closer to the character you want, and allow each template to be more focused.
 
I think I get it. Once I grokked what you can do with BRP type games and how it all works out moment to moment, session to session it made it really tough for me to see modern D&D class-based design as anything but a straight jacket (no matter how many sub-classes, prestige classes, and multiclasses you throw in there), something always seems just a bit kludgy or out of sync with my wishes.

Not to say that I don't appreciate the simplicity of the design in B/X, or DCC as a fun "beer and pretzels" RPG, but it's never quite as satisfying for long term play.
More or less, this exactly:smile:.
 
Hmm, in other contexts people argue that constraints promote creativity.

To an extent, I'm sorry that there aren't more independent class-like templates that advance; actual class takes over as levels advance while race and background which are significant at low levels become somewhat irrelevant. This might let you get closer to the character you want, and allow each template to be more focused.

oh, I agree that restriction promotes creativity. Maybe not in this particular case, but it really can.

as for class like templates, I think these do show up in Mythras with cults and brotherhoods - your involvement goes up as you are more involved and it defines you more. But it is somewhat optional in classless systems - you can stay focused in race and background. Those might not be as Interesting, or maybe they are to you.

I do think some of this crops up more once you GM a bunch and are used to being able to just make whatever you like on the fly. I wasn’t always this way, to be sure, and I absolutely see the value for presenting an easy archetype.
 
The issue I've always had is how magical item reliant the Fighter types had as their damage plateau'd, pre-3e (Because 3.x on the other Fighting Men get some boosters, Rage and Smite.) I don't mind Rogues/Thieves getting a precision strike ability, after all, they're low armour, medium damage without it. They're the Alpha Strikers of the D&D set. But Fighter types are, or should be, the combat specialists. They too should have a damage boost that increases with experience, just something perhaps a little more... Reliable?

advantage on damage :smile: but that’s not all that satisfying to some folks. Arguably, having a wider set of weapons should give this, as they could pull out the best weapon for the scenario, but in practice they stick to one since there are not a lot of parameters that get switched at that level. You can’t just make every other fight not backstab friendly because hat hoses the rogue :smile:

I will argue that 13th age does one of the best jobs of making fighters, in a class system, interesting. Lots of maneuvers. They roll to hit and get something on just about every single attack. Their shields are meaningful as well (which...well...a sore spot with me, as a shield lover).
 
I've been seeing some of this, and some issues with branding/labelling with some new players "I'll make an arcane trickster because I want to be that kind of thing!" and their idea of an arcane trickster doesn't mesh very well with the current "rogue, with a dash of mage", when what they want is "mage, but sneaky, and named arcane trickster". Sure, it's an easy fix, and I even suggested it 2 weeks ago to a player, but it can be troublesome if the GM and the player are not in close communication about the character.

Everything you've said are fair criticisms. Though I find most players worry less about character build. The limitation of classes is partially ameliorated by multiclassing, which has few limitation, now. For example, a wizard could take a dip in rogue to get expertise in stealth.
 
Everything you've said are fair criticisms. Though I find most players worry less about character build. The limitation of classes is partially ameliorated by multiclassing, which has few limitation, now. For example, a wizard could take a dip in rogue to get expertise in stealth.

yea, less about character build and more getting what they want out of the character. In this case, it was "i wanna be an arcane trickster" and expected a lot more magic and a lot less backstab.

and yea, it can be handled with multiclassing. I find it a crude instrument personally, but that's part of it's job. Maybe I should title this thread "slightly less old but just as grumpy old man yells at a subsection of the sky"
 
Part of the problem is D&D being married to several elements of design that have evolved into the current set of problems we find today in 5e (varying for taste of course).

Classes are ultimately just packages of skills. But the other elements of the class mechanic is also informed by HP and subsystems specific to the class (abilities and talents).

I think classes themselves are meta-mechanics that are not particularly useful to me except to be form of shorthand design. They're self-contained systems which players play in the context of larger gameplay, informing and limiting you mechanically on how your character develops. You PLAY a Fighter or Warlock, and play the Fighter or Warlock mini-game that connects through the combat/non-combat Task Resolution mechanics to whittle away health, or do non-combat action <X> which only you can do that other classes can't. Everything else that turns these into exceptions are largely tack-on rules to overcome the obvious issues of class-based design. (Multi-classing)

There are ways to thread that needle. But WotC is far too invested in soothing the Edition warriors than trying to deconstruct D&D into a more open design. Which is understandable given the 4e results. But 4e, I contend, is not open design - rather its a different game altogether and is more of a chunky skirmish boardgame (which I wish they would have marketed it as such)
 
There are ways to thread that needle. But WotC is far too invested in soothing the Edition warriors than trying to deconstruct D&D into a more open design. Which is understandable given the 4e results. But 4e, I contend, is not open design - rather its a different game altogether and is more of a chunky skirmish boardgame (which I wish they would have marketed it as such)
This is absolutely not true in the least. The reason 4e failed is rather simple. It wasn't 3.x. That's it. That's the reason Pathfinder ate it's lunch. It changed too much. Hell, it CHANGED the system, that's egregious enough for most gamers. This is why as a design, 5e is technically a step back to older systems, because it doesn't change anything too drastically, it adapts more modern mechanics, like a unified system, but it takes elements of older things to allow for nostalgia and comfort.

Humans are creatures of habits and patterns, change disrupts that and thus is unwanted. The only reason that people went from 0D&D to 3.x was because they felt to stay 'relevant' they had no choice but to keep updating. But 3.x changed that with OGL, so now WoTC cannot, nor will not take any real chances on it's design for fear of having another Pathfinder moment.
 
Classes are ultimately just packages of skills. But the other elements of the class mechanic is also informed by HP and subsystems specific to the class (abilities and talents).

yep, this crossover bothers me a bunch. it probably explains a lot of why I don't mind 13th age and I do mind it in 5e. 13th age skills, aka backgrounds, are exceedingly broad and defined by your story. being the sneaky mage is quite simple.

I think classes themselves are meta-mechanics that are not particularly useful to me except to be form of shorthand design. They're self-contained systems which players play in the context of larger gameplay, informing and limiting you mechanically on how your character develops. You PLAY a Fighter or Warlock, and play the Fighter or Warlock mini-game that connects through the combat/non-combat Task Resolution mechanics to whittle away health, or do non-combat action <X> which only you can do that other classes can't. Everything else that turns these into exceptions are largely tack-on rules to overcome the obvious issues of class-based design. (Multi-classing)

I'm not surprised by that. I find them to not be useful either. Much of what you say here resonates with me. it is too coarse a granularity for how I think about my characters. Even multiclassing, which to me feels like a blunt instrument for this solution.

There are ways to thread that needle. But WotC is far too invested in soothing the Edition warriors than trying to deconstruct D&D into a more open design. Which is understandable given the 4e results. But 4e, I contend, is not open design - rather its a different game altogether and is more of a chunky skirmish boardgame (which I wish they would have marketed it as such)

my whole group would agree with you. It's a solid skirmish game, and we enjoyed it as such (once we got MM3 rules)

This is absolutely not true in the least. The reason 4e failed is rather simple. It wasn't 3.x. That's it. That's the reason Pathfinder ate it's lunch. It changed too much. Hell, it CHANGED the system, that's egregious enough for most gamers. This is why as a design, 5e is technically a step back to older systems, because it doesn't change anything too drastically, it adapts more modern mechanics, like a unified system, but it takes elements of older things to allow for nostalgia and comfort.

Humans are creatures of habits and patterns, change disrupts that and thus is unwanted. The only reason that people went from 0D&D to 3.x was because they felt to stay 'relevant' they had no choice but to keep updating. But 3.x changed that with OGL, so now WoTC cannot, nor will not take any real chances on it's design for fear of having another Pathfinder moment.

I think you both are not really in disagreement here. Maybe different facets of the same thing, but not really in disagreement. "por que no los dos" and all.
 
so, they aren't necessarily exclusive, but you see them together a lot. the 5e sneak attack thread makes me think about this.
It is indeed about gating, and it’s just one of the strategies games tend to use. It’s something that impacts my enjoyment of games, too. There are four strategies I’ve seen in fairly common use:

106DB869-FC4B-4FEB-A5B1-F17FECBA8165.png

I’ve suggested a ‘hard vs soft’ distinction. The hard gates tend to be binary and involve a lot of commitment. The ones I’ve called ‘soft’ are more fluid in practice, meaning more people can try them, but there are other limiting factors in play.

Originally, class-based restrictions were super-hard, as there wasn’t any multi-classing, these days they are less black-and-white. Both class abilities and feats tend to be binary in nature; if you have this class / feat you can do something, if you don’t then you can’t.

Conversely, soft limits are more about penalties to an action. In GURPS, anyone can do a ‘sneak attack’ but having the right level of stealth skill to get close, followed by enough weapon skill to hit a vital area reliably means that you would need to build your character’s skills with that in mind if you want to use it regularly.

Interestingly, in my recent GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game the players felt GURPS was punishingly hard to pull things like this off, even with high skills. And if you try and fail one of the rolls along the way you might be well out of position and exposed to counter-attack. I found that an interesting perception.

‘Load outs’ is something that only occurred to me recently (it may be obvious to other people). It occurred to me after Lunamancer Lunamancer was talking about the DMG commentary on sneaking, based in what the person was wearing. In summary, if you wore no armour, you could get to a certain closeness. If you wore leather armour you would be spotted at a certain distance, and with metal armour that distance was greater, making stealth more difficult. So, under those rules a fighter (say) could engage in some sneaking if they take off their armour. There is a trade-off for their combat ability, as this is significantly influenced by how heavy your armour is. Being more sneaky means being less tanky for a period of time. Another example is what equipment you have in-hand. Consider a fighter / wizard multi-class in 5e. If the character is holding sword and shield they have no hands free for material or somatic components (unless they invest a feat, ironically); again, being melee-equipped means the character is less magic-capable.

Ultimately, it’s about making choices meaningful, it just varies based on what you are investing (a level, feat, skill points) and how easy they are to change (permanent, based on equipment, based on spells memorised, even). I dislike class-based gating as it represents too much of a commitment to get the ability, and I agree that it feels artificial. Conversely, the benefit of the binary approach with class or feat gating is players can more reliably use these abilities, reducing potential for frustration.

So all the approaches have positives and negatives!

It always seemed odd that stealth and sneak attacks were gated behind a class, and there was nothing there to really say "this is why". like.. why are they the only people that sneak and stab?
In D&D, you have the logic backwards... it’s not that only rogue’s can backstab, it’s that anyone who can backstab is a rogue by definition! :grin:
 
This is absolutely not true in the least. The reason 4e failed is rather simple. It wasn't 3.x. That's it. That's the reason Pathfinder ate it's lunch. It changed too much. Hell, it CHANGED the system, that's egregious enough for most gamers. This is why as a design, 5e is technically a step back to older systems, because it doesn't change anything too drastically, it adapts more modern mechanics, like a unified system, but it takes elements of older things to allow for nostalgia and comfort.

I'm referring to 5e. I fully acknowledge that 4e was a radical departure and design choice. I don't think it makes for a good rpg that I would run. 5e IS the panacea to all the edition warriors. You're making my point for me.

Humans are creatures of habits and patterns, change disrupts that and thus is unwanted. The only reason that people went from 0D&D to 3.x was because they felt to stay 'relevant' they had no choice but to keep updating. But 3.x changed that with OGL, so now WoTC cannot, nor will not take any real chances on it's design for fear of having another Pathfinder moment.

Yep. And WotC is looking to create treadmills for consumers not curating the hobby which their brand happens to be the sky under which that hobby exists. I think going classless would not drastically impact D&D's brand as long as they maintained the core conceipts of their settings - all of which can be made modular and have been done so in various editions. You CAN have it all without being class-based. Other games exist that do it - arguablly better than D&D at doing "D&D style fantasy", but you already know this.

Unless we're really saying D&D is nothing more than the d20 mechanics itself... and everything else is just window-dressing. I'm suggesting /i the next go-around they should take a small chance and at least give optional rules for classless design, like we did in Talislanta: Savage Lands D&D5e editon. (you essentially level up and pick your skills/abilities as you "level"). It can be done.

Edit: I'm working on a laptop and I created a new word: Conceipts. I'm keeping it.
 
you essentially level up and pick your skills/abilities as you "level"
Sounds similar to True20 with the three generic classes you pick from every time you level, or is it even less structured than that? If it is, how does it control access to ‘abilities’?
 
Sounds similar to True20 with the three generic classes you pick from every time you level, or is it even less structured than that? If it is, how does it control access to ‘abilities’?

The setting is very savage by nature. So progression is standardized for this setting in mind. In this case standardized HP progression (you can take average + con as an alternative or roll d10+con) and every time you level you choose something. So a Expertise means when using one of your Proficiencies your, your bonuses are doubled for use of that procificiency. Feature - you choose from a list of Class Features (Rogue Sneak Attack, Barbarian Danger Sense etc.) and simply add it to your character. Here is an example of the first 10-levels

1579291221944.png

But you could EASILY modify this for any setting, with a few simple dial-twists.
 
When your conceits have the receipts.


I'm here all week, folks.

giphy.gif
 
Not to say that I don't appreciate the simplicity of the design in B/X, or DCC as a fun "beer and pretzels" RPG, but it's never quite as satisfying for long term play.
I've played in some longer campaigns of DCC and, for me, one outcome of how its classes work is that they end up feeling less like 'jobs' and more like obsessions. The Wizard is fixated on obtaining knowledge and power, the Cleric is a single-minded fanatic, etc.
I've never played a thief though (IIRC).
Maybe that's just my take on them... but it fires me up more than the classes I've been playing in 5e.
 
My biggest problem with multi-classing is that, to take the Arcane Trickster example, I'd have to play through one or more levels of either arcane or trickster before I can even begin to put the two together. And then when I do it still isn't likely to mesh well with the concept I actually had in mind for Arcane Trickster.

Edit: The issue here is that in play that can be upwards of several months of compromised game play for something that isn't likely to ever fully align with the original concept.
 
The issue I've always had is how magical item reliant the Fighter types had as their damage plateau'd, pre-3e (Because 3.x on the other Fighting Men get some boosters, Rage and Smite.) I don't mind Rogues/Thieves getting a precision strike ability, after all, they're low armour, medium damage without it. They're the Alpha Strikers of the D&D set. But Fighter types are, or should be, the combat specialists. They too should have a damage boost that increases with experience, just something perhaps a little more... Reliable?
I know it's a controversial mechanic in D&D, but I'd start by giving the Fighter some small but guaranteed damage on a strike (Say, their proficiency bonus, but fluffed as stress and not being able to score a kill, and still forcing a concentration check). If a fighter wants you dead, then you're on a clock.
 
My biggest problem with multi-classing is that, to take the Arcane Trickster example, I'd have to play through one or more levels of either arcane or trickster before I can even begin to put the two together. And then when I do it still isn't likely to mesh well with the concept I actually had in mind for Arcane Trickster.

Edit: The issue here is that in play that can be upwards of several months of compromised game play for something that isn't likely to ever fully align with the original concept.

If you're aiming for a character concept that simply can't be represented in D&D 5e, then you're ultimately going to be disappointed, yes. But much of this criticism boils down to either "no true Scotsman" or "why can't my character be massively more powerful than everyone around him?". You want a wizard who wields a sword like Gandalf? Make him an elf, proficient in longsword.

For the arcane trickster example (mage with extra sneakiness and less backstab), you could go with bard (they eventually get expertise and could apply that to stealth); or just a wizard with high dexterity and a background that gives stealth and sleight of hand and later a feat like skulker; or variant human rogue with a feat giving some initial magic, and then multiclass as wizard thereafter.

I know it's a controversial mechanic in D&D, but I'd start by giving the Fighter some small but guaranteed damage on a strike (Say, their proficiency bonus, but fluffed as stress and not being able to score a kill, and still forcing a concentration check). If a fighter wants you dead, then you're on a clock.

I like that; maybe once per round or action and within 5 feet and if they take an attack action. The disappointment with fighters in 5e is that they don't really have their own thing that they can work every round; sure, action surge occasionally, and more extra attacks and more feats, and a small number of superiority dice for the battlemaster. But barbarians are tankier and rogues tend to deal more damage (albeit if they can get the sneak attack) and monks and moon druids get to strike as magic weapons at a certain level. Their main distinction at first level is that fighters can get a better AC than other characters (assuming standard or point buy ability scores), and they can't really advance much in that.
 
If you're aiming for a character concept that simply can't be represented in D&D 5e, then you're ultimately going to be disappointed, yes.
But Savage Schemer Savage Schemer isn't going for a concept that can't be represented in 5e, just one that takes 3 levels to kick-in. I have a similar dissatisfaction with multi-classing. Why should I need to play through two levels of a character I don't want to play before I get to play what I do want (and that is explicitly supported by the rules)?
 
But Savage Schemer Savage Schemer isn't going for a concept that can't be represented in 5e, just one that takes 3 levels to kick-in. I have a similar dissatisfaction with multi-classing. Why should I need to play through two levels of a character I don't want to play before I get to play what I do want (and that is explicitly supported by the rules)?

So the problem is either the granularity of 5e ("I really want to start with 0.6 levels of wizard and 0.4 levels of rogue") or the power level ("I want my first level character to be as strong as a third level character"). Since you get to 3rd level with only 900 XP (or two adventures if you follow the "level up after every adventure" approach) and you could just start the campaign with everyone at 3rd level, this seems not much of a problem. And I suggested several 1st level characters that might align adequately with the suggested character concept, if you would care to look at the second paragraph of my previous post.
 
But Savage Schemer Savage Schemer isn't going for a concept that can't be represented in 5e, just one that takes 3 levels to kick-in. I have a similar dissatisfaction with multi-classing. Why should I need to play through two levels of a character I don't want to play before I get to play what I do want (and that is explicitly supported by the rules)?
The first 2 levels in 5e fly by, often only a session each. You can also just start at level 3-5 if you want people to start with a full concept instead of growing into it.
 
Last edited:
so, they aren't necessarily exclusive, but you see them together a lot. the 5e sneak attack thread makes me think about this.

It always seemed odd that stealth and sneak attacks were gated behind a class, and there was nothing there to really say "this is why". like.. why are they the only people that sneak and stab?

the sneak attack itself is always about more damage. that's great and all, but really, that's sort of just because that's the only axis that the game works on. If you add some other parameters to work with, sneak attacks can be a lot more. Not to hold up mythras on a pedestal here, but sneak attacks don't do more damage - they deny defense (you are surprised), and you get an extra special effect. This might mean you get bypass armor and maximize damage and you get a lot of damage. It might also mean bypass armor and choose location head, which lets you get the garrotte on them and keep them silent.

anyhow, that one in particular sticks in my craw, right there next to 1/day or 1/encounter powers.

this isn't just about stealth but other ones as well. Maybe i just needed to rant a bit, because I was going to start a discussion and i just kind of ranted ;)

Let’s face it, the RQ version of armour we see in Mythras just makes more sense than AC.

Now that you mention it the rogue/thief ‘sneak attack’ is a bit meta or ‘disassociated’ or ‘gamey’ of a mechanic. Just goes to show how much we accept older mechanics that are oft criticized in newer games.

Personally AC doesn’t bother me though as I just accept it as an abstraction in D&D, if one can’t accept it there are lots of other choices to play. I wish some of the more obsessive critics of D&D (not anyone in this thread) would just move on to other games rather than endlessly tinker with D&D’s core mechanics that are reasonably solid.

But Savage Schemer Savage Schemer isn't going for a concept that can't be represented in 5e, just one that takes 3 levels to kick-in. I have a similar dissatisfaction with multi-classing. Why should I need to play through two levels of a character I don't want to play before I get to play what I do want (and that is explicitly supported by the rules)?

I’ve never been a fan of multi-classing in D&D, as I said above it seems to be an attempt to twist the system into a shape that just doesn’t really suit it.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never been a fan of multi-classing in D&D, as I said above it seems to be an attempt to twist the system into a shape that just doesn’t really suit it.

It's a bit um, blocky, in that at any given time, you increase one thing a whole step and other things not at all. But it's a way to model someone whose job description doesn't fit neatly in one class. Occasionally, it can even be part of the storytelling, where a character is on a path, something happens, then they select a new path. Like maybe they got religion and switched to cleric or grew up a thief but acquired a more noble profession.
 
yea, less about character build and more getting what they want out of the character. In this case, it was "i wanna be an arcane trickster" and expected a lot more magic and a lot less backstab.

and yea, it can be handled with multiclassing. I find it a crude instrument personally, but that's part of it's job. Maybe I should title this thread "slightly less old but just as grumpy old man yells at a subsection of the sky"
Having played the Arcane Trickster, I found it incredibly frustrating. It's not well designed at all. Most of the low level spells they're allowed to pick are useless at the higher levels they get them. I found that I got the occasional use out of fog cloud and then simply defaulted to casting shield whenever someone hit me while, my action every round was "Sneak Attack". Not at all how I envisioned the playing the character.

For a character that was supposed to be cunning and live by his wits he was remarkably boring every time combat started.
 
Classes that are more than optional descriptions / templates: I don't like.

Niche protection: I don't like. If you want to be the best at something, go be the best at it (or die trying). Don't expect the game / universe / GM to warp itself to highlight your specialness.
 
The issue I've always had is how magical item reliant the Fighter types had as their damage plateau'd, pre-3e (Because 3.x on the other Fighting Men get some boosters, Rage and Smite.) I don't mind Rogues/Thieves getting a precision strike ability, after all, they're low armour, medium damage without it. They're the Alpha Strikers of the D&D set. But Fighter types are, or should be, the combat specialists. They too should have a damage boost that increases with experience, just something perhaps a little more... Reliable?
They do... they get more attacks, feats, etc. Fighters can become combat monsters very easily. The main difference since 3.0 on is that the fighter is a generalist who you can specialize as you like where other classes are specialists from the get go. Even the 3.x barbarian was not as versatile and capable in combat as a fighter after around level 5.
5th isn't even magical item reliant, the core class progression is enough to keep you in the game without the need for magical items.
 
Classes and Levels were created in a context of archetypal roles and managed through a system of high GM fiat.

The more detailed classes become, the further from this context they become and the less they make sense.
 
They do... they get more attacks, feats, etc. Fighters can become combat monsters very easily. The main difference since 3.0 on is that the fighter is a generalist who you can specialize as you like where other classes are specialists from the get go. Even the 3.x barbarian was not as versatile and capable in combat as a fighter after around level 5.
5th isn't even magical item reliant, the core class progression is enough to keep you in the game without the need for magical items.
Except that a Monk gets a better damage progression with extra attacks and increasing damage, up to four with their Ki points system. A Dual Wielding Ranger (if you set it up correctly) can have up to 3 reliable attacks by level 3 and 4 by level 5, on top of having spells that can add to it, while the Dual Wield Fighter will only have 3, with a single extra on top per fight, and no damage boost except by item.
 
This is absolutely not true in the least. The reason 4e failed is rather simple. It wasn't 3.x. That's it. That's the reason Pathfinder ate it's lunch. It changed too much. Hell, it CHANGED the system, that's egregious enough for most gamers. This is why as a design, 5e is technically a step back to older systems, because it doesn't change anything too drastically, it adapts more modern mechanics, like a unified system, but it takes elements of older things to allow for nostalgia and comfort.

Humans are creatures of habits and patterns, change disrupts that and thus is unwanted. The only reason that people went from 0D&D to 3.x was because they felt to stay 'relevant' they had no choice but to keep updating. But 3.x changed that with OGL, so now WoTC cannot, nor will not take any real chances on it's design for fear of having another Pathfinder moment.
4.0 failed because they ignored their entire player base. They didn't just try and reinvent the wheel, they tried to convince us all to use skis instead. It was not D&D it was a totally different game in almost all conceivable ways. They tried to cash in on the MMO style of play and failed hard.
 
Fighters in 5E are...ok. (So long as they're Battlemasters). They're not exceptionally interesting - but you get some maneuvers, you get extra attacks. You can have a mini-nova reasonably frequently if you use action surge. They get easier access to feats, and they're not MAD so they will get those feats a lot sooner.

They're a bit bland and certainly 13th Age does better (but it's fighter also has some issues with many maneuvers not doing enough to have an impact) and they have nothing that can reshape the battle field like 4e Fighters could and spellcasters still can.

They may run into issues with the rest economy - if they don't get to take short rests - and the party takes long rests too frequently - they may appear sub-par, but generally they hold their own.
 
Except that a Monk gets a better damage progression with extra attacks and increasing damage, up to four with their Ki points system. A Dual Wielding Ranger (if you set it up correctly) can have up to 3 reliable attacks by level 3 and 4 by level 5, on top of having spells that can add to it, while the Dual Wield Fighter will only have 3, with a single extra on top per fight, and no damage boost except by item.
If you are talking 3.x... no, the fighter is absolute king of builds for combat. I've tried almost every combination imaginable and it always boils down to ditching the majority of class levels for fighter levels and feats. Want the best archer... go fighter, want a sword and board tank, go fighter, want the best dual wield go fighter, or multiclass your ranger a few levels into fighter. Two handers... yep fighter.
Monks are gimicky characters that were someone's darling, but they fall to pieces at higher levels unless you follow a specific path for them. Same with other combat classes. They are SPECIALISTS at one particular branch of fighting, but the fighter can be specialized into any other combat type and typically does it better. Barbarian is the only exception as they do their own thing on top of combat with the rage and DR.
The other benefit of a fighter over almost all other class types is that you only need a level or two to get the benefits of it. After that, you can go about your merry way with what ever other idea you had in mind.
 
I've found classes have one good use in tabletop RPGs, and that's to make it more accessible to those who play MMORPGs and other video RPGs. The vast majority of them have classes, so it makes it much easier to introduce tabletop RPGs to MMORPG and other video RPG players.
 
Fighters in 5E are...ok. (So long as they're Battlemasters). They're not exceptionally interesting - but you get some maneuvers, you get extra attacks. You can have a mini-nova reasonably frequently if you use action surge. They get easier access to feats, and they're not MAD so they will get those feats a lot sooner.

They're a bit bland and certainly 13th Age does better (but it's fighter also has some issues with many maneuvers not doing enough to have an impact) and they have nothing that can reshape the battle field like 4e Fighters could and spellcasters still can.

They may run into issues with the rest economy - if they don't get to take short rests - and the party takes long rests too frequently - they may appear sub-par, but generally they hold their own.
5e fighters seem to lack luster, but are pretty decent overall I found. I just didn't have the desire to play one as much as I did in other editions.
 
4.0 failed because they ignored their entire player base. They didn't just try and reinvent the wheel, they tried to convince us all to use skis instead. It was not D&D it was a totally different game in almost all conceivable ways. They tried to cash in on the MMO style of play and failed hard.
Actually, no, they LISTENED to it. That's the problem. Players claimed one thing, but didn't like what that meant. In the end, players just wanted more 3.x. They didn't even want 5e.

If you are talking 3.x... no, the fighter is absolute king of builds for combat. I've tried almost every combination imaginable and it always boils down to ditching the majority of class levels for fighter levels and feats. Want the best archer... go fighter, want a sword and board tank, go fighter, want the best dual wield go fighter, or multiclass your ranger a few levels into fighter. Two handers... yep fighter.
Monks are gimicky characters that were someone's darling, but they fall to pieces at higher levels unless you follow a specific path for them. Same with other combat classes. They are SPECIALISTS at one particular branch of fighting, but the fighter can be specialized into any other combat type and typically does it better. Barbarian is the only exception as they do their own thing on top of combat with the rage and DR.
The other benefit of a fighter over almost all other class types is that you only need a level or two to get the benefits of it. After that, you can go about your merry way with what ever other idea you had in mind.
I was talking 5e. The 3.x Fighter is a trap. You want a damage god? 2 levels of Fighter rest in Barbarian. But the really versatile combat master, the Wizard, or Druid. (By RAW. Can't argue house rules, so I won't.)
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top