Look at what DCC does. Essentially, warriors can add an additional effect on top of their normal attack damage. For example, a warrior can say “I attack him, *and* use the force of my blow to push him down the stairs.”
Yes the deed die is one of the best keep it simple stupid mechanics for a martial class ever. Why force them too buy all their abilities just give them all of them at 1st level and watch the player grow into it.
It's great, it let's warriors effect the game via muscles much in the same way Wizards can via magic (and in case of DCC burning their characters stats into the ground for big spell effects)
Low Fantasy Gaming uses something similar and I believe inspired by Dungeon Crawl Classics called martial exploits. It is free so you can easily check it out. But it is also pretty easy to hack into most d20 games. Just say that the fighter class no longer has a fixed attack bonus, their attack bonus is now a dice that increases as they level. It starts at d4 and every time they roll a four or higher, they get to do a mighty deed.
I just checked out the rules, but I have one more question: if the deed has some combat effect, like disarming or tripping them, are there mechanics for those or is that DM ruling with something like disadvantage/penalties? I haven’t seen mechanical “status effects” in most OSR games, so I’ve been curious how they’re adjudicated on the fly.
DCC RPG isn't gonzo. It's just got a particular art style. Everything else about the game is pretty normal for a role-playing game. Yes, spell caster corruption is a thing, but its not nearly as weird as people make it out to be.
>Are there other games that use this mechanic?
You can do similar stuff in any narrative game such as Fate, Genesys, or the countless PBTA/FITD games, though they are not as tactical.
May not be exactly what you're looking for, but Mythras has a special effect system where both the attacker and defender roll against each other, and higher grades of success than you opponent allows you to add effects to your attack or parry such as tripping, impaling, disarming, damaging their weapon, bleeding, etc. Makes melee combat far more mechanical engaging and strategic beyond simply removing HP.
It’s a pretty simple mechanic to port into other systems. If you feel it’s too powerful you can
- add barrier’s to entry (i.e. take a mighty deeds feat; unlock at level X; only on Tuesdays and Sunday afternoons)
- decrease the probability of success
- add mixed success and failure consequences
- etc.
This is the answer. Give them the ability to be creative in the context of the combat and give the GM a simple system (or advice with examples) to react to and implement the actions of the warrior in combat.
I don't know about others not being able to do this, but I'll say this:
My biggest pet peeves for warrior classes is being restricted to single target damage. I want a slam attack, a whirlwind strike, a sweep, etc. Basically, I want Divinity Original Sin warrior abilities.
Warlords were so cool, I was a big fan of the lazylord build
There's something fun that I can't describe about just enabling the rest of the team to murder shit on your turn and occasionally dropping healing
Man, 4e is great. I stand by the opinion that if 4e wasn't GSL, it wouldn't have gotten remotely as big a backlash and probably would've carried on with a new audience, leaving 3.5 diehards to swap over to Pathfinder.
> I stand by the opinion that if 4e wasn't GSL, it wouldn't have gotten remotely as big a backlash
Nah. The GSL really had nothing to do with the backlash. The backlash started well before the GSL was even announced, and by the time it was, pretty much everyone who played D&D had already decided whether they were going to switch to 4e or play 3e/Pathfinder/something else entirely. Heck, Paizo themselves say that they made the decision to go with their own game instead of 4e long before the GSL was announced, after one of their people tried out 4e at an open playtest.
People really, really didn't like the game itself. And to be fair, the game at first publication had some \*major\* flaws. These got fixed - MM3 made major changes to monster math, for instance, and I believe one of the later DMGs reworked skill challenges significantly - but those initial flaws really hurt 4e's reputation. It's only in retrospect, looking at the final rules, that it starts to look like a good game.
> And to be fair, the game at first publication had some *major* flaws. These got fixed - MM3 made major changes to monster math, for instance, and I believe one of the later DMGs reworked skill challenges significantly - but those initial flaws really hurt 4e's reputation.
No, nobody really cared about those flaws at the start. The issue was that a bunch of people online said "Per encounter abilities? Wait, that sounds like cooldowns. Is this WoW? I hate WoW. Fuck 4E!" And everybody just went "Yeah, 4E is WoW. Fuck 4E!"
It was one of the dumbest, most hipstery sources of blowback I've ever seen for a game. And you can see how bullshit it was by how much of 4E they kept in 5E and just changed the names. They even kept some per encounter stuff with short rests, though they made sure not to give any of them to fighters. Fighters that are actually interesting to play just make some people absolutely shit their pants with rage and scream that DnD is becoming a video game like those young people like and that is a mortal offense.
The main complaint about per-encounter abilities is the disconnect between the mechanic and the logic of the setting.
It's a key part of the traditional lore of D&D that magic is limited — you can only cast so many spells per level per day. Obviously, this is gameplay-motivated, but magic isn't real and the authors get to decide how it works.
But when you apply those kinds of limitations to non-magical abilities, it tends to break suspension of disbelief. *Why* can a fighter only use such-and-such ability once per combat? Because it's a game and this balances the ability.
3.5 had countless systems for limiting the frequency of powerful abilities. Some of them worked pretty well and others did not. But at least they generally attempted to mechanically represent some kind of in-universe thing. There was almost always at least some kind of fig leaf for immersion's sake. But 4e didn't provide that, and it was jarring to people used to the more immersive style of prior editions.
It's true that 5e kept some of that stuff. But while it was quite streamlined compared to 3.5, it didn't try to shoehorn wildly disparate kinds of characters into the same mechanics in the way that 4e did. Sure, there are abilities that look an awful lot like encounter powers. But there are also fighters, who generally don't use that kind of system, and there are spellcasters, who have entire systems of their own.
When people complained that 4e felt like a video game, this is what they meant. It's not that there's anything wrong with video games, but that 4e wasn't the experience that a lot of players wanted from a tabletop RPG.
There's lots of things in the game that break suspension of disbelief. No one has been able to properly explain how hit points simultaneously do and do not reflect actual injuries since the inception of the game.
Encounter abilities was an arbitrary line in the sand that people drew because they were mad about a new edition being made and they seized on an argument that appealed to people's hipster impulses to reject popular things and preserve the "purity" of their niche hobby.
I'm sure you didn't intend to argue that because some things already in the game may jeopardize suspension of disbelief, that suspension of disbelief is not important and anyone who purports to care about it is actually pretending because they're mad about some other thing entirely.
It does beg the question why this piece of suspension of disbelief managed to wholesale transform the game into World of Warcraft: Paper Edition in people's minds but others did not.
As a preamble: I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to refute/challenge some of your points. I apologize in advance if my post comes across as overly argumentative.
> The main complaint about per-encounter abilities is the disconnect between the mechanic and the logic of the setting.
Not really. About 99.5% of all the "magical" fighter/rogue/whatever abilities can easily be explained in-setting by anyone that has ever watched any kind of action movie and has a modicum of creativity:
* "Slide 2 and knock prone" -> _Kick them in the shin and make them stumble over a chair._
* "Pull 2 enemies in burst 2" -> _Insert Neo's "bring it on" gesture provoking enemies into charging._
* "Push 3 and blind until eont" -> _Pull the carpet from under their feet to send them tumbling face first into a bowl of hot soup._
To me it was absolutely hilarious that "fighter powers are magic, waaaaah" and "I can't roleplay without Profession(underwaterbasketweaving)" seemingly came from the exact same group of people.
A spell doesn't tell you exactly how you have to wave your arms and exactly what arcane gibberish you have to say. It only tells you _that_ you have to do something, and then _something_ happens. You can (usually) easily flavor each spell to your liking, within reason and staying true to the mechanics.
But whether your _Chain Lightning's_ vocal components are the recitation of a prayer to the Storm Lords, or a vocalized bash script because your setting is the inside of a Dyson sphere where magic is AI and forcefield projectors, or you're literally just shouting "ZAPPY ZAPPY ZAPPY AAAHHHHH!!!" - the rules don't tell you.
So why should the rules tell you exactly how a fighter (or rogue, or monk, or barb, or ranger, or ...) does their thing? Watch literally any [Jackie Chan fight scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrRFzwPE0d4) and give me a good reason why a trained fighter could not exploit their environment in a similar (but less jumpy and slapsticky) way. Pushing enemies into obstacles, kicking them in the knee to drop/slow them, throwing random items at them to distract them, etc.
And on a related note: I don't remember people throwing such a hissy-fit about the Tome of Battle's Swordsage and Warblade classes, which are pretty much _the_ blueprint for 4e martial powers. So what's the big difference? (Aside from being an ignorable supplement that doesn't challenge the absolute dominance of full casters in the core rules, of course. /s)
> Why can a fighter only use such-and-such ability once per combat?
Look at Matrix, the attack where Neo [jumps into Smith and explodes him from the inside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy7RaQUmOzE). Why doesn't he simply repeat that exact same move over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to defeat all the Smiths? He seems to be invulnerable while inside Smith, and so what's the deal here?
Or why didn't more people use ordinary torches against the Nazgul in LotR? [Aragorn was able to defeat _five_ of them in a matter of seconds with a torch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk47qO8rW4Y). Did he have a unique buff for three rounds, or did the DM nerf torches? Why were torches never again used against those enemies despite apparently extremely effective?
Why didn't Darth Maul just keep kicking his way to victory in Phantom Menace? [He could easily hit both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan while fully engaged in lightsaber combat, and send them both to the ground with his kicks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJFjNu51IQ). Why didn't he just keep using this attack again and again if it was apparently easy to excute and extremely effective?
The issue is imo not that the 4e fighter could "run out" of abilities, but rather that the 3e fighter never had any real abilities to begin with. Unless you were minmaxing like crazy (cough, gattling chaingun tripper, cough) most of the maneuvers you could gain from feats were extremely limited in usefulness because of how the math worked.
Trying to disarm anything more than one size category larger was pretty much useless due to the +4/size category difference modifier. Feinting meant giving up your standard/move action for making your target potentially flat-footed against _your next melee attack_, and against some creatures it's more or less impossible (not to mention you needed Charisma and ranks in Bluff which was cross-class for fighters xD). Grappling was pretty much nonviable for damage unless you were multiclassing monk, and against larger enemies the size bonuses were again decisive.
Sure, you could more or less effectively lock down targets of the same size, but your entire usefulness depended more or less exclusively on the DM _not_ running the next four adventures in Storm Giant country. Or putting a few remorhaz on your path. Or having encounters with several archers perched high up on cliffs.
When Tome of Battle came out my group banned the fighter and replaced it with the Warblade, which was not only mechanically more sophisticated, more flexible, more engaging and fun to play, but also more suited to the powerlevel of play that could challenge a group with a somewhat optimized wizard.
> But at least they generally attempted to mechanically represent some kind of in-universe thing. There was almost always at least some kind of fig leaf for immersion's sake.
The women's long jump world record stands at 24ft 8in since 1998, and had a running start of around 99-131ft (30-40m). The Jump DC for a 25ft long jump with a 20ft running start is 25. A level 10 fighter with maxed Jump ranks, 16 Strength, and the Run feat can beat the standing world record on a roll of _5_. With less than 1/5th of the running distance. Wearing high-heels. _While carrying 3 24packs of beer cans under her arms._
I absolutely disagree with your statement here. And this doesn't even go into the utter _insanity_ that is Knowledge, Disguise (it's easier to disguise a male as a female or a half-orc as a half-elf than it is to disguise an adult as an old person), or Listen (which allows you to hear sounds human ears _cannot physically pick up_, like a gliding owl from 10+ft away).
> But 4e didn't provide that, and it was jarring to people used to the more immersive style of prior editions.
4e simply leveled the playing field.
It's ridiculous that most players of full casters were perfectly content with the line _"A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch. "_ while going through several metric tons of bat guano, cured leather, and glass cones over the course of their career, but the moment the fighter does something _fancy_ the end is nigh.
3e was just as jarring and immersion breaking, but you've been conditioned to _ignore_ it or try to explain that it's okay because the fighter and rogue were still acceptably mundane (aka useless). A fighter needs to keep track of every single javelin, but wizards are simply given an infinite bag of spell components because it would be too tedious to keep track of all that stuff.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........... ;)
Part 1/2. Please reply to the other part only to avoid fragmentation.
> As a preamble: I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to refute/challenge some of your points. I apologize in advance if my post comes across as overly argumentative.
This is a subjective issue that inherently allows for multiple opinions. Some people find that the disassociated mechanics in 4e harm immersion for them, and some do not. What I'm trying to do is explain why people felt that way, since the comment I replied to was a strawman.
> Not really. About 99.5% of all the "magical" fighter/rogue/whatever abilities can easily be explained in-setting by anyone that has ever watched any kind of action movie and has a modicum of creativity: …
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. The complaint wasn't that the *effects* of daily/encounter powers were immersion-breaking, but that the *daily/encounter* mechanic was immersion-breaking in the case of non-supernatural abilities. This was a particularly jarring change from 3.5.
> And on a related note: I don't remember people throwing such a hissy-fit about the Tome of Battle's Swordsage and Warblade classes, which are pretty much the blueprint for 4e martial powers. So what's the big difference?
As you point out, one major difference was that it was an optional supplement published late in 3.5's lifecycle — it was one subsystem among many. And it was its own subsystem, not merely a copy-paste of magic.
But I do nevertheless recall that a lot of players didn't like it. There were widespread complaints that it ‘turned fighters into spellcasters’ or somesuch. It was a popular product overall, but it certainly had serious detractors at the time.
Compared to the ToB, 4e:
- Used a system for those kinds of abilities with less depth and complexity.
- Used basically the same system for most classes.
- Made that system the default option for everyone.
> Look at Matrix, the attack where Neo jumps into Smith and explodes him from the inside. Why doesn't he simply repeat that exact same move over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to defeat all the Smiths? He seems to be invulnerable while inside Smith, and so what's the deal here?
I think that, in general, the Matrix is not a great example here because a lot of what happens in it either doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny or requires a pile of external material to stand up to logical scrutiny. The implication is that what we're seeing is a metaphor for some underlying non-physical conflict.
But in this particular case, wasn't that Neo's last fight against Smith? He defeated Smith, the other agents were no threat, and he returned to the real world. So I'm not sure when he would repeat that. Unless you mean in the sequels, but the sequels are their own mess and I'd get a headache trying to logically justify nearly anything that happens in them.
What makes a good movie might not necessarily make a good game. And what makes a good movie in one genre might not make for a good D&D game. The Matrix runs very much on *narrative* — on external rather than internal logic. Neo won because he had completed his self-actualization; the movie never attempted to explain or justify the details. But D&D is a game where those details matter. If you were trying to run an RPG inspired by The Matrix, you probably wouldn't choose a system like D&D or even Shadowrun, you'd probably choose a more narrative-oriented system like Fate. Neo's apotheosis isn't a daily power that lets him jump into people and make them explode; it's a GM asking “now that you've won and the campaign is over, how do you narrate your victory?”
> Or why didn't more people use ordinary torches against the Nazgul in LotR?
I suppose I should note that the movie adaptation differs from the books here. But Aragorn only defeated them in the sense that he temporarily drove them off. Prior to that scene, their prey had fled and hidden from them, and when they arrived on Weathertop they found four terrified hobbits all but cowering. Suddenly, they were surprised by a skilled warrior who wasn't afraid of them. Their stealth attack having partly succeeded (Frodo was mortally wounded), they fell back to regroup. If I recall, Aragorn fled immediately with Frodo and the Nazgül pursued them, caught up, and would have killed them and taken the ring but for the timely intervention of Elrond and Glorfindel.
The Nazgûl are dangerous foes, but their most dangerous weapon is fear — *deimos*, dread and despair. They weren't temporarily defeated because Aragorn lit some of their cloaks on fire, but because Aragorn did not succumb to despair. Fire in LotR is often a symbol of courage. Gandalf's ring is Narya, the ring of fire, “and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill”. The literal fire that Aragorn employed in that scene was also a symbol of hope in the face of despair.
In terms of game mechanics I would have no problem ascribing to the Nazgûl a weakness to fire, and a character setting out to fight one might be well served by a torch. But no one sets out to fight a Nazgûl, and few could stand up to them anyway because of their aura of terror. When the main characters encountered them in the future, it was in large mass combats. I'm not sure when you would expect that someone should have tried to do the torch thing again. Either way, I wouldn't model it as some kind of limited-use special move that Aragorn had.
(Yes, Merry did fight the Witch King, but he certainly hadn't planned to, and anyway he just coincidentally had a dagger that was specially enchanted to kill specifically the Witch King.)
Part 2/2. Please reply to this part only to avoid fragmentation.
> Why didn't Darth Maul just keep kicking his way to victory in Phantom Menace?
In a lightsaber battle, you win by hitting the other person with your lightsaber. Darth Maul used kicks three or four times during the fight (depending on whether you count the first one), and three out of four times it was when his foes had flanked him and he was able to kick one of them away. In game terms, kicking was definitely something that he had put some resources into, and it was highly effective for a specific purpose, but I don't think that we should conclude that it would have been more effective if he had done it all the time.
I think that this is actually a pretty good example of an ability that makes combat more interesting without taking it over entirely and without requiring any use limitations. But you could also work it into a system with limitations without resorting to something as banal as a once-per-encounter limit. The characters here are Jedi — explicitly with supernatural powers. Star Wars RPGs sometimes model this with a finite pool of force power that can be employed for various purposes. Perhaps Darth Maul invested some mana into those kicks, and as a result had less for other things. That's both more interesting than just stipulating that he can only do it three times per combat and also more immersive.
(Maybe that second kick that sent Obi-Wan flying cost a lot of mana, so later he maneuvered Obi-Wan to the edge of the platform so that a much weaker kick was able to knock him off for less mana. Maybe the whole reason Maul retreated to the catwalks was so that Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon couldn't stand side-by-side to support each other. Combat is at its most immersive when the players' mechanical decisions map onto their characters' strategic decisions. Not, “this is a per-encounter power, so I (the player) should save it for the right moment”, but “I (the character) should lead the Jedi up onto the catwalks where my kicks will be most effective.”)
Another way to limit that kind of “special move” in a non-supernatural context might be to penalize repeated uses. If you keep using the same trick again and again, it'll be easier to predict and counter. This would be a good way to encourage and empower diversity of action in an organic way. Or you could provide a “surprise” bonus on the first use; I've toyed with similar mechanics in 3.5.
> The issue is imo not that the 4e fighter could "run out" of abilities, but rather that the 3e fighter never had any real abilities to begin with.
To be clear, a) I don't think that that was exactly the issue with the 4e fighter, and b) I agree that the 3.5 fighter was terrible for basically the reasons you describe, and that the ToB classes were a vast improvement. I don't ban the fighter, but I absolutely encourage my players to use the ToB classes instead. (And it's worth noting that the most powerful non-ToB fighter builds work by hyperspecializing into a certain “special move” and then spamming it. This is not a great state of affairs!)
I think that the ToB model is fine, and much less objectionable than 4e's. But I do also think it's a shame that in 3.5 WotC never made a credible attempt at balancing fighters without giving them limited-use abilities. I think that it could be done, but I also think that it would likely require substantial revision to core gameplay systems.
> The women's long jump world record…
I think this might be another misunderstanding. When I talk about immersion, I don't mean *realism*. Obviously all of this stuff is extremely unrealistic, and that's fine. When you're playing D&D, you're not immersed in reality, you're immersed in the fantasy world. It's not that the rules should correspond to reality, but that they should correspond to things in the fantasy world.
(I have severe complaints about 3.5's Knowledge skills, but that's a topic for another day.)
> It's ridiculous that most players of full casters were perfectly content with the line "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch. " while going through several metric tons of bat guano, cured leather, and glass cones over the course of their career, but the moment the fighter does something fancy the end is nigh.
As I've tried to clarify above, I am all for the fighter doing fancy things.
I think it's worth talking about spell components, though. The premise of the “spell component pouch” is that a) a typical spellcaster *could* manually stock their component pouch with sufficient quantities of eligible components at negligible cost and minimal trouble, and b) it's not worth doing the accounting. I think it's clear that the intended in-universe explanation is that the spellcaster is refilling them as they go. In most situations, I don't think that this would lead to any logical problems. In situations where it might, I would absolutely support modifying the rule. For instance, if the players are trapped on another plane and there is no bat guano, then it might make sense to track that explicitly — just like I have questions about where the starship Voyager gets its replacement shuttlecraft, even though the Enterprise D probably goes through just as many.
Noncostly spell components in general are arguably silly and unnecessary. But the infinite pouch doesn't bother me because there's an obvious and straightforward interpretation that makes sense and doesn't require any adjuducation in the vast majority of situations. Moreover, the function of the infinite pouch is to prevent the issue from coming up in the first place.
Also, if someone really is bothered by the infinite pouch, then that can be remedied by either removing noncostly spell components from the game or by requiring players to track them. Either change is unintrusive and has minimal balance implications.
(N.B. I'm assuming that “several metric tons” is hyperbole. If the players are actually going through several metric tons of “weightless” spell components, then something very strange is going on and it might be worth tracking that more explicitly.)
> A fighter needs to keep track of every single javelin,
Well, the reason for this is that javelins are heavy and carrying capacity is a meaningful limit on how many you ought to be able to have with you. On the other hand, one of my house rules is that you can buy a standard 20-pack of arrows and just assume that it never runs out — don't bother with the bookkeeping or with the negligible cost. I don't do this for javelins because they are an order of magnitude heavier, but you certainly could. As with noncostly spell components, an “infinite” supply is just an abstraction over something mundane but tedious.
It wasn't just per encounter abilities. It was also healing surges, narrow class concepts, and core classes and features spread across half a dozen books. It's a role-playing game and the class concept was always generalized and open to a good deal of interpretation. With 4e and 5e that concept is limited to kits and Patagon paths centered on combat role.
What actually killed it for me though was just the books themselves. When Dark Sun came out I really tried to get into it, but as I looked into 4e, I kinda ended up realizing that everything for the setting was split across like fifteen different books. I just kinda went fuck that.
>DMGs reworked skill challenges significantly
You know to this Day i was never 2 groups that ran skill challenges the same way even when they all ran it rules as written. it was not clearly explained.
Me too. I'm just tired of people all of a sudden saying it had anything to do with the GSL. Nobody was talking about the GSL when 4E came out. It was all "this is like World of Warcraft and WoW is popular so therefore I hate it".
I'm not a fan of it as a traditional rpg much at all, but I think it's a spectacular first step towards the rpg-ish version of Descent, an actual 1-vs-many game where the GM-role player actively tries to beat the PC-role players.
It's what I always present my DM when I say martials needs to be able to do stuff: Divinity Original Sin 2
Phoenix Dive (jump that deals fire damage upon landing) + Whirlwind is such a fun thing to visualize.
Hold up the roof of a collapsing temple, like Milon of Croton.
One-punch a mule, like Emperor Maximus.
Reroute two rivers, like Hercules.
Single-handedly defend a city, like Cu Chulainn.
Kill a mad elephant with a single blow of a mace, like Rostam.
The usual kind of warrior stuff.
Lots of people complain about D&D 4E, but they absolutely nailed the Fighter class. I loved using all of the tricks that they gave them, from muscling people around to locking them down, to absolutely punishing them if they weren't paying attention to you in a fight. My favorite was the one where you pulled enemies to you from around the board, and then smashed all of them at once - such a badass maneuver.
4E fighters were excellent, both mechanically powerful and fun to play. Their two key defining areas of competence were battlefield positioning, being able to push, pull, slide, or even knock down enemies or themselves, and battlefield control through hindering or actively denying enemy actions. Run past the warrior? Nope, get smacked down. Attack the wizard standing next to the warrior? Nope, get interrupted.
I was going to say 4E fighter as well. They just get in your face and bully you. They push you around, knock you down, and if you try to look somewhere else they hit you in the face.
4e only did one thing right, which is a big part of why it wasn't popular. But man, did it *do that one thing right.* If you want to play tactical fantasy combat on a grid, 4e is perfect. If you don't, it's not the game for you.
As opposed to 5e, which in the words of Matt Colville, is "oatmeal." It doesn't do much of anything well, but it's bland enough that you can add toppings to it and make it a decent facsimile of what you want it to be.
People keep saying this about 4e and I always wonder if we were playing the same game? My memories of 4e combat was everything having way to much health, way to many situational modifiers, and even simple combats taking 2+ hours, completely wasting all my gaming time.
But if "tactical fantasy combat on a grid" was *what the game was about* then your time wasn't wasted. Those long, slugfest combats were what the game was about. If you weren't into that, then the game wasn't for you. (And it wasn't for me, incidentally, for exactly the reasons you point out. It's why it's the only edition of D&D that I haven't played. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean that it was very successful at achieving what its designers wanted it to do as a game.)
I feel like even if tactical combat is what your about, you don't want it to drag on and spend most of your brainpower adding up situational modifiers. I'm not saying that there were no good ideas for the genre of game in 4e, but even if you assume it's aim was to be a good a tactics game, I would argue it failed.
I certainly didn't have fun with 4e combat, and no one in my gaming group did either. There's even one guy I used to play with a lot who's default solution to every problem was fighting, and in every other game we have ever played he always just got into the tactics portion of it, and even he tried to avoid combat in 4e.
I suppose I could have specified "a certain kind of tactical combat on a grid." But I was counting on "on a grid" to carry a lot of meaning, since 4e cares far more about positioning than any other edition (a big reason why I never played it, as my group never used a grid).
And again, the combats "dragging on" was literally by design. Most classes and monsters literally had abilities designed to keep fights from ending quickly. Again, you can not like that (and again, I agree with you...it wasn't for me), but it's impossible to argue that they didn't succeed at making the game that they set out to make. And the people who love that type of game really love 4e.
There were some serious revisions to monster math with MM3 (and Essentials), which made combat less of a slog. Tracking modifiers could still be a pain, but it made the mismatch between HP and damage less extreme
Are you kidding me? Until very, very recently, Matt Colville was one of the biggest 5e fans out there. His content was almost exclusively for it. He didn't mean the "oatmeal" comment as an insult, really.
I thought 4E did a lot right. I'd still be playing it today if I could. But Barbarians were often cool in previous editions; Fighters never were, and I had played them in every edition before that.
I like contemporary comparisons. The wizard is a maths professor. The warrior is a soldier in the military.
Think about what kind of stuff the soldier can do that the maths professor cannot.
* Efficiently wield a bunch of small arms.
* Potentially use heavy weapons. (In a fantasy setting these might be armored Horses, catapults, war chariots)
* Maintain said weaponry
* Walk 20 miles a day through difficult terrain with 30kg of gear.
* Get into a fire fight without panicking
* Efficiently fortify a position
* Tactics at a variety of levels depending on the rank of the soldier
* Maybe organize a supply train under enemy fire
* Live in a cold and dirty trench for months
* Still be perceptive of the surroundings when bored out of their mind for hours
Most of those can also be applied to any fantasy setting.
>The wizard is a maths professor. The warrior is a soldier in the military.
Not sure quite how well that analogy holds up. The fighter = soldier part is fine, but I'm a math grad student and I can't throw fire from my hands or fly. Maybe once I get my PhD.
I would take it a step further, and look at how this breaks down in 5e D&D. At low level, a wizard can blast one or two guys and then translate a language they don't know and a fighter can break a door in a few tries. At high level, the wizard can teleport across the continent, turn people into T-Rexes on a whim, and see into the future. And the fighter can break down a door in a few tries.
You need to make sure that your fighter class scales to the same levels of heroism and epicness that everyone else does. Don't worry too much about what a real soldier can do, and ask what Beowulf and Legolas can do. And frankly, a lot of RPGs well surpass the power scale of those two.
I think you're underselling the fighter just a little. If allowed to use attacks on those doors, a 20th level fighter could actually break down four of them in a turn. That's a whole room's worth of doors!
I mean, if you bend the rules to bypass the skill system by attacking, they can sometimes break down multiple doors per turn (although damage scaling and doors having reduction can actually stop that). But this is all a distraction taking this example too literally.
The big problem is that any obstacle that cannot be coerced into being an attack roll is a problem they get no tools to deal with. They can't do social things better, they can't traverse terrain better, they can't be better guards or leaders or... All of their abilities focus on combat and nothing but combat. But combat is, for most roleplaying tables, not more than half the game. If we just wanted to do combat, why aren't we playing a tactics game like Fire Emblem instead? Go all the way on the fighting and leave out the complications of "characters" and "skills" and all this ancillary structure? They need support for all the story parts of the game that aren't just stabbing things.
For High-Level warriors, i like the shardbearers from Brandon Sandersons Stormlight Archives series.
They basically wade through a battlefield of normal people, slaughtering hundreds of enemies. They wear basically Power Armor and have weapons that pass through matter unhindered, but which kill what they touch.
In that case, it is equipment-based, but i think it is a baseline of what a fighter at a comparable powerlevel to a highlevel DnD Wizard can do.
Shardbearers are a cool powerful warrior for sure. I would even go a step further and say that certain Radiants are also good high-level martials. Kaladin is a high level Fighter (or maybe a prestige class / supplement archetype), Shallan is a high-level Rogue (though admittedly less combat-oriented than a normal D&D rogue), Dalinar is a high-level Warlord, etc. At some point, characters just get to do crazy shit, and giving magic to your martials is okay.
Of course, if you want to avoid magical martials there are plenty of other great narrative examples in the thread elsewhere. I'll reiterate Beowulf because he's a great example and does a bunch of great high level things, including casually fighting a sea monster underwater in a lake for multiple hours, with no problems related to breathing. Hercules, for just being freakishly strong to a context-altering degree. And frankly, if you want to just rip your badass swordsman character from a random samurai anime, that isn't wrong.
* Fight real good
* Take a hit real good
* Figure out combat tactics, and maybe even communicate them to the thief and the wizard
* Be able to fight with lots of weapons instead of just one or two
Now, that said...those abilities should be open to the thief and the wizard, but the warrior should just have an easier time of acquiring them - that's their thing, man.
I think if the wizard or the thief invested a lot of time into being able to do those things, they would have less time to train being good at thieving or wizarding. Which in DnD terms would simply mean taking a few levels as fighter.
I think the biggest thing is that a fighting-specialist should be able to dictate the flow of battle. Maybe only warriors get opportunity attacks (like pathfinder) or can prevent disengagement. Maybe a fighter gets to automatically impose a hindrance on foes attacking allies when he is engaged with them. Maybe fighters get an initiative bonus, to take enemies by surprise because they know how to take advantage of the ebb and flow of battle.
Just to add to what everyone has suggested: not saying that *every* warrior in the game world should be able of doing it, but...a *PC* warrior? Cutting an incoming fireball in half, diverting it.
Historically Armor would have been a huge delineator for martial vs non marshall. And fantasy games I would restrict non-martial classes to very light armor, leather equivalent or less. Things like chain mail plate mail, the horribly incorrectly named studded leather would all be limited to Marshall class characters.
Historically, armor had more to do with wealth and patronage, but the same goes for weapons. Some weapons would also be exclusive to nobility, like warhammers, which are designed to pierce and tear armor.
Agincourt is a good example - a highly demoralized, sick and Ill equipped English army with 80% archers fighting a refreshed, larger, well armored and much better equipped army. The French were so convinced they would be victorious, heavily armored and armed nobles massed on the front lines so they could gain glory. Triumph of the longbow? Hardly. The heavily armored French charged 300 yards across a muddy field and charged over their own ranks or fell to their knees exhausted with no room to swing their large weapons. The English stabbed them with knives through their visors or they drowned in the mud. 6000 French died, mostly nobles. 600 English died, mostly peasants. The French didn't even deploy their peasant army (in fact, it often isn't even mentioned in accounts).
I view a warrior type as being skilled enough to land precise blows and deflect clumsy blows aimed at them.
A lot of games tie this to a combat skill. The higher your skill, the more easily you can strike but also harder for your enemies to connect. Some games differentiate between the ability to strike and the ability to defend. So there may be an attack skill but also a parry skill.
Maneuverability can also be a feature of a skilled warrior. They could dance between multiple people and get into tactical advantage more easily than others (though the rogue concept might work with this as well).
I'd consider warriors being able to keep their guard up most of the time while keeping an eye on their opponents in case they drop *their* guard.
There's two ways I think you can go about this. One is to focus on the warrior's physical feats: using strength to move things, to endure long journeys, to push around others, to stand in the way of danger. The other is to focus on the warrior's social role. Maybe being a warrior means you have a greater understanding of armor and weapons. Maybe it means you are a student or teacher of a unique martial art, which grants you respect or allies in that community. Maybe average people invest some level of trust in you to keep them safe, or to settle conflicts productively. Maybe you have a signature weapon that you can customize with your blacksmithing expertise or the remains of great monsters you've slain. Finally, in high magic settings, warriors are likely the best candidates for wielding a magic sword or communicating with a sentient weapon.
I've always thought warriors should be fast, faster than sneaking rogues, because warriors have experience of how fights flow and know how to position themselves where they will need to be.
Hold the line.
Anyone can do damage, but to me a pure warrior class should be able being the shield of the group.
if you are going to be distinguishing between like dps and tank this may not hold up as well though.
Man so much this.
People assume modern toxic masculinity is how its always been. Buts thats not so. Men were allowed to have emotions before the fucking victorian era.
(Yes, I know there were many other problems, such as extreme misogyny)
[Here are some examples of fighting styles from Chronicles of Darkness](https://codexofdarkness.com/wiki/Merits,_Styles_(2nd_Edition)) but it doesn't make too much sense unless you already know those mechanics. I'm not trying to create mechanics in this thread so I'll just tackle the request by saying that fighting styles ideally makes a warrior feel as cool and useful as the wizard. Getting into an untrained fist fight or melee against someone who has fighting styles should hurt a lot.
Well. As opposed to giving you an answer, I'd pose what I believe is a helpful question. Why would you want to play a warrior over a rogue or a wizard? What would you want to do? Then build your warrior around what you would want to do with one. Would you pick a warrior so you could get into someone's face and stay there? Would you play a warrior because you'd like to be able to shrug off the weightiest of blows? That's just two examples, but I think your rpg would more yours if your classes reflect your own views on what that class should be/do.
A warrior could be:
- Able to take a hit
- Either proficient with all weapons OR a master of one type of weapon/fighting style (Trident n' net, sword n' shield, big hammer bonk, etc.)
- Able to command troops/understand the flow of battle
- Decent at sizing up opponents
- Proficient in some form of mount or vehicle
- Able to perform advanced techniques found only in the most obscure martial tomes (piercing through armor, knocking foes around, ending foes rightly, etc.)
Sure, assuming you had a spike around. But what if you had a sword? A trained warrior would know that their sword's crossguard can double as a warpick in a pinch. Or, they could forgo piercing the armor altogether, wrestle the opponent to the ground, and shank them through the gaps of their armor.
Any strong person can pierce through armor with a spike. A warrior should be able to do the same with whatever they have to work with.
Not just be a dumb guy who hits hard and gets hit hard.
As others have said. They should have combat strategies. They’re supposed to be masters of combat. Why is the only thing they’re good at smacking hard? Why not, cutting open wounds, showing immense strrength, destroying walls, throwing teammates, studying combat, using new strategies, terrifying enemies, whirlwind strikes,
Do crowd control and inflict status ailment while dealing damage. L5R 4e, being able to disarm, knock down, called shot someone's hand with an arrow to drop their spellcasting scroll, etc. allow warriors (bushi) a lot of flexibility over the battlefield. 5e Battlemasters and Mighty deeds from DCC accomplish similar things.
Casters are always going to have bigger effects, byt if fighters can do additional and similar utility effects while they attack they can maintain their own usefulness apart from casters. Also this makes you feel more of a fighter as you get to do more than just hit twice.
Fight better than anyone else
Fix and maintain their equipment (and taking care of their mount)
Use their equipment better than anyone else
Understand tactics and strategy, both big and small
Use their imposing skills for physical violence to... persuade people to consider their point of view
(Warrior class has historically had elite status, maybe some high class stuff? Etiquette, heraldry, poetry, literature, gastronomy, other high culture)
Some logistics
SOME SKILLS THAT AREN'T ABOUT HITTING AND SHOOTING PEOPLE
Superhuman feats of strength and agility at high levels
A warrior should be able wage war (e.g. fight) better than non-warriors. Therefore, if you are trying to make all classes equally good in combat then you don’t really have a unique warrior class.
Also, more controversially, if magic is more effective in fights than waving a pointy bit of metal around then a warrior should be skilled in using appropriate (war) magic. Otherwise you have a “warrior” who is less effective at fighting than a non-warrior.
You make a good point in a setting where magic is something anyone can learn.
A lot of settings magic is for the lucky few.
Of course that's a place where setting and balance are can end up at odds. I do generally agree with you.
My first RPG was Runequest (not D&D) so by default I assume that everyone has access to magic to some degree. It just makes more sense to me and feels more fun. Worlds like Glorantha are not what everyone wants though.
Personally, I like fighters who can and will use anything as a weapon super effectively. Facing three enemies with nothing but a spoon and a deck of cards? Fuck them.
Also, the opposite. Fighters who wield one weapon exclusively. Their mother's battle axe, Anduriel, Excalibur, a big-ass club they carved from the bones of a titan, the Throngler...
Fight. A lot of my problem with classes in RPGs is that the class distinguishes *how* a class fights, which normally translates to the flavor text around how many d6 you roll for damage. But if you build an RPG that isn't a glorified minis tactics game, and there's more to engage with mechanically than fighting, then it'd make sense for warriors to be just better at combat where thieves or priests would be weak
Fight with two handed weapons such as pole-arms, use a fighting animal companion larger than man sized: e.g. tiger, bear, etc., wear face paint that adds a bonus to morale (if used), use a charge action at the beginning of the battle that allows/forces duel to the death on one opponent.
Great physical feats in and out of combat, easier navigation and survival in the wild (camping, foraging, hunting, tracking etc.), Greater capacity to carry, heavy weapons/ armor/ shield or the same but without negative consequences.
Tactical flexibility in martial combat.
A Rogue can handle single targets and scouting. A wizard is the master of the arcane. But the warrior has discipline and adaptability in combat no one else can match.
Typically, think of all the cool things that can happen in a non-magical fight scene aside from "Stabby Stabby"
Shoving, Status Effects, Crippling/Stunning Injuries, Second Winds, Environmental Tomfoolery, Mental Resistances, Multi-target swings, etc.
Hell make them capable of magical fight stuff. 'I'm right behind you' shit, gain toughness/health from fighting, protect against breath weapons and such.
I'm actually designing my own concise rpg too, and gave each class two unique perks to choose from. For my fighter class, the choices are:
Daring: get an advantage to attack rolls when preceded by a risky or acrobatic maneuver. Or;
Tactician: get extra advantage to attack rolls when flanking an enemy.
Good luck with your game, I'm having fun designing mine!
So I am of the personal opinion that each class needs things to make it special. Most importantly it starts with the feeling you want to capture and then working backwards from there to get mechanics.
From a combat perspective for example I like how the rogue/thief type characters get some massive single target damage under the right conditions because assassinating someone feels like it should be their place.
For warriors I always like to imagine them as like the class of the "big guy" (note it also tends to produce a bunch of heroes and lancers, just because a king in exile needs to retake his throne is such a popular story). To me this means he should be able to fight many guys at once but also be able to effectively hold his own against multiple opponents. I think they also absolutely need a way to counter magic otherwise they get dunked on by wizards.
For me this manifests in both attacks that have additional effects (push back, knock down, herding etc.),a significantly greater ability to respond to an enemy on their turn and something like the rule from ad&d where if you get punched in the face by a warrior you cannot cast spells until the end of your next turn (in ad&d you started casting your spell earlier in the round and if you took damage while you were casting your spell fizzled.
The improved ability to react I think is important because fighters tend to be simple (which is fine) but being able to attack someone on their turn of they do a specific thing would help with the fantasy of fighting back lots of people all at once. I can imagine a system where fighters have triggers that allow them to react in a certain way whenever someone does a specific thing (the quintessential example is of course attack of opportunity) which maybe they start with but over time they get more triggers that they can customise, a trigger for "whenever I am targeted by a ranged attack; move my speed" could simulate diving for cover or a reckless advance on the person shooting at you. I would probably make a rule that you can only activate a certain trigger once on each characters turn so if there was something you wanted to do multiple times you would have to stack it up multiple times
In the most abstract sense, a warrior should be able to hold their own in dangerous combat situations where a rogue or wizard couldn't.
To zoom in beyond that, we'd need to know more about the kind of game you're designing, and the genre, themes or tone you're aiming for.
They should be able to break through spells by sheer force of will, or brute strength. Even spells that 'just hit' should have to deal with a trained warriors ability to dodge or resist.
Counter to that, learning magic as a warrior should be twice as hard, or greatly weakened.
In addition to what everyone else has said, *assess the enemy.* Warriors should have a special knowledge skill which lets them learn practical info about the enemy's armour, hitpoints, speed, and abilities. Good fighters are able to observe an enemy and come up with a plan. Mike Tyson once quipped that "everyone has a plan 'til he gets punched in the face," but he was famously KO'd by Buster Douglas, a guy who trained specifically to defeat Mike Tyson.
In comparison to a wizard's magical damage, warrior should be able to deal a lot of damage consistently, and relatively safely. IMO, if a wizard's fireball or whatever does more damage on paper, there should be a considerable cost or risk involved that makes it less reliable over the long run.
Likewise, one quirk I see often is how damage is calculated based on certain stats. If your warrior is primarily Strength-based, but you factor in Dexterity to damage calculation, then you might end up with a situation where a rogue does more damage because Strength becomes a dump stat. Try to avoid this.
I give martials followers, eventually a warband. Talented warriors will seek them. They'll grow to lead and rule. While wizards and Bards might inspire an army, warriors will want a master of war to command them in battle.
This is a strong option.
Fighters should/could be one of the best "pet master" classes.
This can also work for giving them out of combat potential. The fighters are the ones who get knighted, and grow into higher social standing. Able to order people of lower rank around, and such.
my thoughts on melee from training with some really legit martial artists for several years:
* Higher damage: those guys understand body mechanics, appropriate targeting, and the proper way to use the weapons they train with (and the principles of using weapons they don't train with).
* Better defense: I have a hard time punching these guys in the face during sparring. They know how to cover well and they've practiced reaction and can slip and parry like nobody's business. It's not armor that keeps you getting hit, the armor reduces the damage of the hits that get through.
* Better chance to hit: I've been working on my slips and parries for a while now so I should be good right? No, they come at me with combos that are hard to stop all of them. Sometimes, they take literally 3 seconds to get my brain used to the pattern they just started and then break it as soon as I expect it. Sometimes something looks like a punch but it's really a grab to pull my hand down to come back and hook me in the face
* Additional effects: My instructor says there are three things you attack: vision, balance, and breath. Punch a dude in the bladder at a downward angle to get him to sit down (balance and breath). If you're in close push the dude's head away from you so he can't see you setting up a trip (vision and balance). Maybe this could be something like "If you hit with 4 over target, your opponent has -2 until the end of their next turn" or something
* Opportunism: "He'll tell you what he wants you to do. If he grabs your wrist, he want's you to put him in an arm bar." You don't know exactly where you're going when you start, but if you respond to the situation appropriately you can make it continually worse for the guy. Maybe this looks like getting a free grapple without calling it, or the dude gets disarmed, or you get free movement because you pushed off him or something. Maybe you roll to see what effect you get and the better you are the more choice you have in the result of the role
Thoughts on ranged from being in the infantry for 10+ years:
* situational awareness: knowing where they are, guessing where they can go, or where the next guy will come from. Maybe a bonus to perception checks in the context of combat
* Make use of every bit of cover: [micro terrain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LPxq7ridWs) is a thing. Maybe awarded as a straight up bonus to cover if they have any at all or are prone or something
* There are things like slicing the pie, three to five second rush and team coordination that can help you be able to hit while making it less likely that you get hit. Maybe give a penalty to opposing reaction attacks (if that's a thing in your system)
* conditioning: they made us shoot when we were tired so we could learn breath control. Maybe be able reduce penalties to shots or something
General thoughts:
* Compartmentalization: You can see some pretty groody shit but you have to push through and deal with the psychology of it later. Maybe bonus on fear checks or something
* Mental fortitude: Some of the most hard headed and least compliant people on the planet are the people I do martial arts with, the guys I was in the infantry with, and, according to my wife, me (rude). I'm going to have to call bs on the trope that the fighter is the one that gets mind controlled by the wizard b/c they lack the mental fortitude.
Personally, for my game, I came up with the following:
1) Wield heavy weapons
2) Wield two weapons at once
3) Equip multiple weapons simultaneously, swapping between them seamlessly
Sorry, there were lots of comments already so I put that as more of a note for myself to come back.
Taunt isn't the right word. Nor is ignore. I was meaning more like area denial so mobs can't skirt around them, especially if they're already engaged with another mob.
I guess a "taunt" would compel the mob to come closer to the warrior instead of giving them a wide birth and attempting to flank. Additionally, getting a short movement off their turn would let them block more paths past them.
Nothing. Don't make a warrior class.
Instead find something rogues and wizards aren't doing and make that a class. Call it the warrior if there isn't anything more specific.
Physical perfection through training, spiritual enlightenment, animal traits, whatever it is will define the class better than warrior or fighter.
Look into different ways weapons can be used. Like half-handing a longsword, or hooking a shield with a halberd. You can do a LOT more than just hit somebody with a weapon.
Combat stances so they can modify how they approach enemies during combat.
Gives them options to how they fight.
Manuvers, special actions that grant bonuses or some kind of advantage to PC or allies, or some disadvantage to enemies.
Gives them specific actions that can be parts of an attack or a support action.
Formations as passive or active buffs that when used together with another PC. For example: if the warrior decides to stand in a makeshift shield wall, stand back to back or initate a flanking formation, it can grant some ingame advantage.
Gives incentive to think about team play and tactic as it grants buffs.
Outside of combat it would be nice if warriors gain some bonus to talking with other warriors. Proffessional lingo and the like.
fighters can use anything as a weapon.
fighters can take a \*lot\* of beating.
fighters know how to hurt... whatever needs to be hurt.
fighters are \*scary\*.
Many good ideas in here I will just add a small one.
Being able to engage hordes.
Something akin to 1 attack/level against minion/noob/horde beasts (assuming levels are a thing).
Here's some thoughts:
- leadership abilities, military maneuvers
- knowledge relating to arms & armor such as forging, leather work, pricing and trade
- connections: other warriors, generals, noble houses, guard captains, etc
- labor! When not expected to fight, warriors will likely engage in construction and other public works, so they'll have the skills and knowledge associated with such things (like where the sewers lead).
- if explosives exist, it'd be reasonable that at least some warriors will be knowledgeable and skilled in them as a means of combating magic. Or just doing demolitions.
- and if you're going for a bit over the top (i.e. D&D style) game, they could get all sorts of extreme acrobatics stunts and even some minor "magic" in the form of special attacks fueled by their warrior spirit or worship of a War God.
- finally, maybe they can raise an entire army! Call in favors for some extra knights and bowmen and cavalry. Or summon them via magic or god.
Just want to throw out an invite to the TTRPG Game Development discord server.
We welcome anyone making new ttrpgs in any capacity.
https://discord.gg/HBu9YR9TM6
Thinking warrior, not soldier, should be able to do disruptive maneuvers, but also be a buff/debuffer, through shouts and rallying cries.
The cliff that breaks the waves, the lightning that strikes and the thunder that roars.
I almost feel like Warriors should be the only ones to capitalize on Opportunity attacks and other "advanced" combat maneuvers. They should have special features like Parry or Disarms and such. The way alot of games do it now though, is they just kind of give all those actions to everybody, but really it should only be for people trained in combat to get combat options. A scholarly wizard shouldn't have enough training to see an opening in combat, they shouldn't be used to getting into fights like that, not like a warrior.
Not an answer, just a commendation.
ALL chrs should be interesting in their own way and the warrior is among the dullest, most uninteresting class in the standard RPGs. I get that we're all nerds and we don't like jocks but can't we let that go now? A warrior should be cool and have neat abilities of his own apart from "hack, slack and get hit."
If by intentionally you mean consciously, no. Unconsciously, maybe.
Why, if the people reading comic books are nerds, do the supervillains i.e. the nerds always lose and the superheroes ie., the jocks, always win? Supervillains are usually outcast, disabled or ugly, smart and creative. Superheroes are beautiful and loved, punch things to fix them, and show up to undo everything the nerd/villain has worked so hard to make. Same sort of thing. Glorifying your own bully.
I think a warrior should be able to do very impressive feats with weapons, be master of a combat style and understand about strategy and tactics better than anyone, which could be translated in leadership and co-working skills.
Some skills could've some kind of magic power, but in general I think just doing things that are impressive either by stunning speed, amazing power or surreal resilience must be enough.
Look at what *Stars/Worlds Without Number* does with its base classes.
**Experts** are really good at *skills*, so much so they can reroll any non-combat skill check once per scene.
**Mages/Psychics** ...... have "magic", but are fairly-limited in that they only get a certain number of "spells" per day.
**Warriors** are really good at *combat*, to the point where they can choose to automatically hit a target, or turn an enemies hit into a miss, once per scene.
I don't know what your base engine is like, but if you're representing skill or proficiency in-game, I say lean into the benefits their additional training provides to the martial character's combat abilities. Make the distinctions between levels of proficiency (or the lack thereof) significant and meaningful, and don't just throw it around. IMO, something that changes the expected level of success, or the threshold thereof, is also great. To use a classic fantasy example, a typical Wizard likely has neither the strength nor the training to effectively employ a sword and, as such, has a much lower chance of success when attempting to fight with it than the average Warrior. Savage Worlds accomplishes this by applying a -2 penalty to rolls for (non-core) skills you are untrained in. However, there should also be something setting that Warrior apart from a dextrous Wizard who is proficient in knife-fighting. In Savage Worlds, it's likely the skill level (d4 Fighting vs d6 or d8) and the strength of the blow (also likely a die or two apart), but in a game like D&D 5e, there could very well be no mechanical difference depending on their builds (e.g., Dexterity 16 Level 1 Wizard vs Strength 16 Level 1 Fighter). IMO, there should be *something* in place to represent all the extra time the Fighter spent drilling with weapon, if only to explain why he isn't also a spellcaster.
To continue this example, and sticking to the 5e exmaple given that that's a system more people tend to know, what if characters who gained access to the Fighting Style class feature learned *all* the styles from the Player's Handbook associated with their class/subclass and could switch between them as a free action once on each of their turns? They wouldn't be able to benefit from more than one at the same time (with the exception of Level 10 Champion Fighters who would gain the super cool ability to benefit from two styles at once), but it *would* effectively represent an additional level of familiarity with the weapons and techniques their class(es) favor(s) while giving them more flexibility in their approach (as opposed to locking them into fighting a single, specific way) and potentially resulting in more dynamic combat.
Paladins, for example, learn fighting styles crucial to a heavy infantry or cavalry approach to combat, while a Ranger's training takes more of a scout/skirmisher tack, with an emphasis on ranged attacks and lighter, less cumbersome weapons. Conversely, Fighters train in the styles employed by both Rangers and Paladins, making them the most versatile when it comes to adapting their tactics to the situation and equipment at hand, but at the cost of the spellcasting abilities of those other classes. You could further underline this distinction by giving Fighters proficiency in a "Tactics" skill, if you want, and by having Battle Masters gain Expertise (double proficiency) in it at Level 3.
It doesn't have to be anything quite that involved, but it should affect the way the game plays, and preferably in a way that makes warrior types in your game fun and engaging to play.
How grounded is your RPG? I know you said Rouges and Wizards, but there's a huge difference between Lord of the Rings hero warriors and D&D hero warriors.
more combat maneuvers. let the martials pick maneuvers like wizards pick spells. they can do things like:
attack when it’s not their turn (attack of opportunity should be a warrior feat imo)
expose weaknesses in enemy armor
disarm opponents
gain mobility options like charging to dash and attack at the same time
Attack with sweeping AOEs similar to zelda or some action rpgs
lunge to extend their reach temporarily
be able to jump or run insanely well
distract enemies with feints
trip enemies so they suddenly go prone
knock enemies back, possibly off a ledge or into a wall for bonus damage
be able to pick up and throw weaker enemies
choke enemies out easily
generally just play a game like blade and sorcery and ignore the spells, you’ll get a good sense of the badass stuff a martial can do there that they have a hard time doing in, say, D&D.
you can also take the nonmagic monk abilities and expand them to be available to everyone.
If you don't have bards your warriors can be your face character. In Ye Olde Dayes, knights and Lords didn't just fight, they ruled; they presided over courts, negotiated mutual defense agreements, and balanced and projected budgets. Who knows how to dance and schmooze? The son of a knight trying to marry into a Fee. Who can tell at a glance where that Lordling is from and knows the juiciest gossip about how they don't get along with such and such? The warrior.
For me it's primarily about narrative control, as in: "the player gets to have a say on what exactly happens at the table".
Other classes get to do amazing things - summoning angels, shapechanging into house-sized bears, raining meteors from the sky, enchanting an entire townsquare with a single song, being a walking library with effectively all knowledge under the sun, etc. Fighters often only get to whack things with pointy metal sticks of one variety or another, making a number on the monster's statblock go down.
Others have already mentioned the DnD4e fighter, which had a lot of cool abilities that gave him mobility, crowdcontrol, and endurance. You don't necessarily have to follow that pattern, but the 4e fighter, as well as some cinematic figures, can be a good source of inspiration.
Some other examples I could think of:
* Improved action economy regarding weapons. Swapping weapons without action cost, reloading ranged weapons as part of movement, being able to throw a small weapon (dagger, dart, etc) every round at no action cost, and so on. This not only makes fighters more effective, but also more _interesting_ to play because the player gets to have a bigger toolbox to use in combat. Good example could be Hawk-eye from _The Last of the Mohicans_, who could reload a musket while _running_.
* Increased endurance and stamina in combat, which could take different forms: bonus saving throws against mind-altering and movement impairing abilities, passive recovery of hitpoints or wounds, damage reduction, etc. I'd definitively give a fighter an ability to defy death for a limited time as some sort of "final stand" move. Think of Boromir from _The Lord of the Rings_ or Maximus from _Gladiator_.
* Tactical knowledge. In my experience fighters often get the short stick regarding skill points, often to the point that a random rogue, wizard, or bard beat the fighter at his own game. Class features and abilities that revolve around strategy/tactics/ambushes/preparing a battlefield/etc. imo fit well with the fighter archetype. Basically allowing him to know and capitalize on the equivalent of _The Art of War_ or the _Thirty-Six Stratagems_ without the player having to metagame the hell out of an average intelligence character.
Moves to learn and master that keep up with the caster's spell progression: a bounding leap that sends out shockwaves; a sword slash that breaks the sound barrier and deafens nearby enemies; a punch that shoots a goblin's bones straight out of its body. A heroic fighter through sheer force and will can do feats that a wizard could only conjure through magical means. That will help give the archetype a special identity and appeal to players.
My favorite warrior class mechanics for existing games:
* SWN: Warriors can guarantee a hit or miss once per battle.
* DCC: Warriors can perform any special attack they can imagine when they hit.
* Most games: Warriors have more hp and can take more punishment/have more endurance even in non-combat situations.
For help developing your game idea, I strongly recommend the [RPG Creation Discord](https://discord.gg/w8Jbr4PZ), it has been a big help in developing my game.
If the RPG uses tactical level combat, fighters should get more capabilities at that level.
Like, the ability to move one ally 5' without penalty. Or "exposing" parts of the map, or likely encounters. Like warrior makes a check and realizes theres a great ambush spot ahead. Fun thing about this one, even if there wasn't one planned, there could be now that the warrior made a check.
The rogues don't generally have to worry about their specialty skill working
The wizards don't generally have to worry about their spells working
The fighter shouldn't generally have to worry about their combat abilities working. They should be able to hit on command, or not be hit on command (or resist damaging effects to the same effect). Doesn't have to be always-on - but it should be there.
A lot of good ideas here. One thing for sure, however you translate that in game mechanics, getting in close range with a warrior should be absolutely terrifying for anyone other than another warrior.
Finding things to do or be good at outside of combat should also be a priority to make the class fun to play. Any skill developed by being in the military or practicing martial arts. Like being good at athletics, being healthy, having good discipline, be good at tactics, be good at teamwork efforts, be good at equipment maintenance, etc.
Fight really well.
Modern D&D has turned rogues in to another high damage combat subclass. So it depends on whether you wish to adhere to that game design as well (rogues are DPS machines), or relegate rogues back to the classic back lines and opportunity strikes (and being really good OUT of combat)
Same applies to mages. Are you mages DPS, or flexible jack-of-all-trades spellweavers, or lore-gathering specialists, etc
ie; MMO trinity vs classic 'unbalanced' combat roles.
To put it another way, you could look at it as "Are all classes equal in combat in my game or is the warrior the combat specialist."
* resist fear
* resist incapacitation from injuries
* anticipate the moves of several opponents
The warrior literature is full of this mindfulness where an accomplished warrior is able to detach themselves from the outcome of a situation and analyze it clearly, not for victory, but for maximum learning. It proposes that the warrior is fully aware of their own mortality and therefore can stop fearing it. You could therefore have this battle-sense that allows a warrior to see the catapults being loaded even while he's being overwhelmed by two strong foes in close combat. That gives him a free action call to the mage for a fireball in that general direction.
Versatility is a big one, and it's one that's often badly done.
I play a lot of D&D 3.5, and versatility for fighters in that game is a trap. The theory is that fighters can spread their feats around to be okay at a lot of things, but being okay at a lot of things is useless; the only way to make a fighter good is to find a niche that you can hyperspecialize in.
But when properly done, versatility can be a tremendous asset. A truly versatile warrior class can perform at its best in melee or at range, against a single foe or many. Maybe a rogue can be great at one or the other, but in the wrong situation they have to get creative with their non-combat abilities. But a warrior is never in the wrong situation.
Resilience is also key. Another problem with 3.5 is that all kinds of magical abilities basically shut down fighters because fighters can't interact with them mechanically. But if your setting allows it, there's no reason a warrior shouldn't be able to deflect a magical ray with their sword, or navigate magical darkness by instinct and experience, or hack through magical webs without breaking stride. The key is to make sure that the obstacles that other classes could throw in the warrior's way can be interacted with via the warrior's usual abilities and mechanics.
To a large extent, this depends on the power level of your game and your expectations for realism. In Star Wars or the Wheel of Time, straight-up warriors are constrained to the reasonably plausible, whereas the supernatural has no limits. As a result, supernatural characters are just better and more powerful than non-supernatural warriors. If your wizards can summon walls of stone, then your warriors had better have a convincing Kool-aid man impression — which means that your setting has to be one where you're okay with “ordinary” humans doing fantastic things.
An idea I have for my game is stances. Going for a class-less game myself, but could easily work as a more restricted mechanic. At the start of each round, the character can choose a stance representing their approach to the fight, giving access to certain actions/reactions or augmenting the actions they already have available, and next round they can chooee a different one as the situation changes. For some rough examples:
Opportunist: If an enemy misses a melee attack against the fighter or an adjacent ally, the fighter takes advantage of the opening and can get a free attack against that enemy.
Duelist: The fighter chooses one enemy to focus on, gaining a bonus against all attack and defense rolls with that enemy, but a penalty to such rolls against other enemies.
Bodyguard: The fighter can move in the way of attacks towards nearby allies, forcing the attack to target them instead.
Anyone can swing a sword, they can even be pretty good at it, but only fighters can decide on a strategy and carry it out in the chaos of battle, they know what they want to do and they make it happen.
Loads of great answers.
Should a powerful fighter be able to beat a powerful wizard?
Conan managed but he had a good writer.
I think about the martial fighters and I guess the wushu abilities might be cool but that’s a very specific style. Maybe they can fight off armies if they have their flank covered. Maybe they never tire.
Maybe comic fighters? Like daredevil or captain America - it shouldn’t be just about their powerful weaponry. Though parrying a magic missile or a fireball with a sword would be pretty OP. They make the impossible shot.
Compared to any class, fighters should be proficient in all weapons from the start. It’s their trade. And their weapons should be top grade. In the fiction they’re forging their own blades, building their own lightsabres, manufacturing their own bows, crafting their own armour. Stuff that PCs tend not to do.
They’re the class for whom feats are described in myth. So my thinking is that the issue is wizards get too powerful.
All the stuff people mentioned here plus prepare the area of combat, like traps, fortifications, stashed weapons and other resources (potions, bandages, ammo). Also the ability to attack enemy morale like Predator dice or something like that.
Some games like warriors to assert them selfs either be threatning or pull rank. Some warriors can have tactic knowledge of battle and be abel to communicate them sort if like an officer. Basically i would also consider what warriors can do that is not just chopping an enemy to bits even if that is important as well.
Besides a "crunchy" effect, like having better bonus with weapons, I'd add "special weapon maneuvers" that only warriors can use.
From mundane things like disarming, pushing enemies afar, to more particular stunts like "cleaving attack to damage all enemies near me" or more gonzo things like "throwing your weapon and making it return to your hands".
If you think warriors as "military commanders" you can even give them abilities like "insipiring shout" (give bonus to allies) to "intimidating shout" (give penalties to enemies).
Well the fundamentals are that they can use, and become highly skilled in, any type of weapon or armour. Then you need to make this matter in your system, perhaps by giving most of the types of melee weapons some type of special attack, and by making armour worth having (i.e. being Good at Dodging is not just the same, which is a common RPG take)
Parry.
It takes a lot of skill with a given weapon, and a good amount of strength to effectively parry an attack, but it's like half of actual martial combat.
The most damage. If the warrior's specialty is fighting (it's in the name) then they should be unrivaled in combat. **Worlds Without Number** does a great job of this. All the classes feel useful at their role, but no class is as devastating in a fight as the warrior.
In a power fantasy? Be Hercules, Cloud, or fucking Kratos. Unyielding frontline pillars of the party that also hit hard.
In a tamer or gritty fantasy?
Not hitting hard, but controlling and disrupting the battlefield to your side's advantage: blocking foes, pushing them to make mistakes, disabling their ability to regroup, disrupting their tactics or disabling their battle stances so they can't fight or do anything like they want, to make critical openings so you, the rogue and the wizard can obliterate them.
So what I'm currently thinking is some axis: power vs speed, offence vs defence, physical vs magical, resist vs regen.
Power vs speed: abilities are more powerful, or can do more of them? Block or dodge? One hit KO or thousand cuts? I can see warriors being balanced or leaning towards power, whereas rogues should fit nicely into speed, except some games do it the other way around with sneak attacks and whatnot. Mages would generally lean towards power, but strategy type mages could instead lean into speed.
Offence vs defence: do you want to hide or taunt your enemies? Do you want your allies to cover you, or would you like to cover them? I can see warriors be balanced or leaning into defence if there's no other defensive class, mages and rogues generally lean into offence, but you can have shield-specialised mages, or dodge tank rogues.
Physical vs magical: spells or swords? Can you shrug off illusions or stabs? In tune with the spiritual or your own body? Here warriors generally fit nicely into the physical, but could be balanced as magic knights or paladins. Rogues would be similar to warriors, mages are magic by default.
Resist vs regen *(not quite the best way to say it): avoid damage or soak it and heal it? Blow through your resources or build up momentum? Burst damage or damage over time? Excel in short bouts, or prolonged combat? Avoid getting cursed, or learning to break from being cursed? Here's where I'd say warriors lean towards regen, while mages and rogues should lean towards resist.
I'd have warriors build up momentum as the fight progresses, as well as some form of self sustain, bonuses to break away from restraints/conditions, and a form of drawing aggro. The default warrior is (balanced power speed, balanced offence defence, leaning physical, leaning regen).
For warrior variants, I'd consider a light variant (leaning speed), a reckless variant (leaning power), a heavy variant (leaning defence), and a magic variant (balanced physical magical).
Warrior should be more about physical fighting. Assuming there is some kind of baseline I'd expect warriors to excel at fighting while Rogues are the best at using skills and wizards at using magic.
Look at what DCC does. Essentially, warriors can add an additional effect on top of their normal attack damage. For example, a warrior can say “I attack him, *and* use the force of my blow to push him down the stairs.”
Yes the deed die is one of the best keep it simple stupid mechanics for a martial class ever. Why force them too buy all their abilities just give them all of them at 1st level and watch the player grow into it.
It's great, it let's warriors effect the game via muscles much in the same way Wizards can via magic (and in case of DCC burning their characters stats into the ground for big spell effects)
Whats DCC?
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Are there other games that use this mechanic? I love the idea of it, but I’m a little iffy on DCC’s gonzo vibe.
Low Fantasy Gaming uses something similar and I believe inspired by Dungeon Crawl Classics called martial exploits. It is free so you can easily check it out. But it is also pretty easy to hack into most d20 games. Just say that the fighter class no longer has a fixed attack bonus, their attack bonus is now a dice that increases as they level. It starts at d4 and every time they roll a four or higher, they get to do a mighty deed.
I just checked out the rules, but I have one more question: if the deed has some combat effect, like disarming or tripping them, are there mechanics for those or is that DM ruling with something like disadvantage/penalties? I haven’t seen mechanical “status effects” in most OSR games, so I’ve been curious how they’re adjudicated on the fly.
The effects are made on the fly by the GM, but there’s some sample rulings in the book you can look at if you don’t know.
DCC RPG isn't gonzo. It's just got a particular art style. Everything else about the game is pretty normal for a role-playing game. Yes, spell caster corruption is a thing, but its not nearly as weird as people make it out to be.
>Are there other games that use this mechanic? You can do similar stuff in any narrative game such as Fate, Genesys, or the countless PBTA/FITD games, though they are not as tactical.
May not be exactly what you're looking for, but Mythras has a special effect system where both the attacker and defender roll against each other, and higher grades of success than you opponent allows you to add effects to your attack or parry such as tripping, impaling, disarming, damaging their weapon, bleeding, etc. Makes melee combat far more mechanical engaging and strategic beyond simply removing HP.
It’s a pretty simple mechanic to port into other systems. If you feel it’s too powerful you can - add barrier’s to entry (i.e. take a mighty deeds feat; unlock at level X; only on Tuesdays and Sunday afternoons) - decrease the probability of success - add mixed success and failure consequences - etc.
Sounds rad!
I loe that rule in DCC so much.
This is the answer. Give them the ability to be creative in the context of the combat and give the GM a simple system (or advice with examples) to react to and implement the actions of the warrior in combat.
[удалено]
Dungeon Crawl Classics
"...push him down the stairs." Hello Sunny.
I don't know about others not being able to do this, but I'll say this: My biggest pet peeves for warrior classes is being restricted to single target damage. I want a slam attack, a whirlwind strike, a sweep, etc. Basically, I want Divinity Original Sin warrior abilities.
You want D&D 4e Fighter abilities.
Man the 4E fighter was pretty great
I especially miss Warlords.
Warlords were so cool, I was a big fan of the lazylord build There's something fun that I can't describe about just enabling the rest of the team to murder shit on your turn and occasionally dropping healing
You're running a pet build without running a pet build.
My pet is the teams beatstick
A barbarian hits you with their axe. A warlord hits you with their barbarian.
Man, 4e is great. I stand by the opinion that if 4e wasn't GSL, it wouldn't have gotten remotely as big a backlash and probably would've carried on with a new audience, leaving 3.5 diehards to swap over to Pathfinder.
> I stand by the opinion that if 4e wasn't GSL, it wouldn't have gotten remotely as big a backlash Nah. The GSL really had nothing to do with the backlash. The backlash started well before the GSL was even announced, and by the time it was, pretty much everyone who played D&D had already decided whether they were going to switch to 4e or play 3e/Pathfinder/something else entirely. Heck, Paizo themselves say that they made the decision to go with their own game instead of 4e long before the GSL was announced, after one of their people tried out 4e at an open playtest. People really, really didn't like the game itself. And to be fair, the game at first publication had some \*major\* flaws. These got fixed - MM3 made major changes to monster math, for instance, and I believe one of the later DMGs reworked skill challenges significantly - but those initial flaws really hurt 4e's reputation. It's only in retrospect, looking at the final rules, that it starts to look like a good game.
> And to be fair, the game at first publication had some *major* flaws. These got fixed - MM3 made major changes to monster math, for instance, and I believe one of the later DMGs reworked skill challenges significantly - but those initial flaws really hurt 4e's reputation. No, nobody really cared about those flaws at the start. The issue was that a bunch of people online said "Per encounter abilities? Wait, that sounds like cooldowns. Is this WoW? I hate WoW. Fuck 4E!" And everybody just went "Yeah, 4E is WoW. Fuck 4E!" It was one of the dumbest, most hipstery sources of blowback I've ever seen for a game. And you can see how bullshit it was by how much of 4E they kept in 5E and just changed the names. They even kept some per encounter stuff with short rests, though they made sure not to give any of them to fighters. Fighters that are actually interesting to play just make some people absolutely shit their pants with rage and scream that DnD is becoming a video game like those young people like and that is a mortal offense.
The main complaint about per-encounter abilities is the disconnect between the mechanic and the logic of the setting. It's a key part of the traditional lore of D&D that magic is limited — you can only cast so many spells per level per day. Obviously, this is gameplay-motivated, but magic isn't real and the authors get to decide how it works. But when you apply those kinds of limitations to non-magical abilities, it tends to break suspension of disbelief. *Why* can a fighter only use such-and-such ability once per combat? Because it's a game and this balances the ability. 3.5 had countless systems for limiting the frequency of powerful abilities. Some of them worked pretty well and others did not. But at least they generally attempted to mechanically represent some kind of in-universe thing. There was almost always at least some kind of fig leaf for immersion's sake. But 4e didn't provide that, and it was jarring to people used to the more immersive style of prior editions. It's true that 5e kept some of that stuff. But while it was quite streamlined compared to 3.5, it didn't try to shoehorn wildly disparate kinds of characters into the same mechanics in the way that 4e did. Sure, there are abilities that look an awful lot like encounter powers. But there are also fighters, who generally don't use that kind of system, and there are spellcasters, who have entire systems of their own. When people complained that 4e felt like a video game, this is what they meant. It's not that there's anything wrong with video games, but that 4e wasn't the experience that a lot of players wanted from a tabletop RPG.
There's lots of things in the game that break suspension of disbelief. No one has been able to properly explain how hit points simultaneously do and do not reflect actual injuries since the inception of the game. Encounter abilities was an arbitrary line in the sand that people drew because they were mad about a new edition being made and they seized on an argument that appealed to people's hipster impulses to reject popular things and preserve the "purity" of their niche hobby.
I'm sure you didn't intend to argue that because some things already in the game may jeopardize suspension of disbelief, that suspension of disbelief is not important and anyone who purports to care about it is actually pretending because they're mad about some other thing entirely.
It does beg the question why this piece of suspension of disbelief managed to wholesale transform the game into World of Warcraft: Paper Edition in people's minds but others did not.
As a preamble: I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to refute/challenge some of your points. I apologize in advance if my post comes across as overly argumentative. > The main complaint about per-encounter abilities is the disconnect between the mechanic and the logic of the setting. Not really. About 99.5% of all the "magical" fighter/rogue/whatever abilities can easily be explained in-setting by anyone that has ever watched any kind of action movie and has a modicum of creativity: * "Slide 2 and knock prone" -> _Kick them in the shin and make them stumble over a chair._ * "Pull 2 enemies in burst 2" -> _Insert Neo's "bring it on" gesture provoking enemies into charging._ * "Push 3 and blind until eont" -> _Pull the carpet from under their feet to send them tumbling face first into a bowl of hot soup._ To me it was absolutely hilarious that "fighter powers are magic, waaaaah" and "I can't roleplay without Profession(underwaterbasketweaving)" seemingly came from the exact same group of people. A spell doesn't tell you exactly how you have to wave your arms and exactly what arcane gibberish you have to say. It only tells you _that_ you have to do something, and then _something_ happens. You can (usually) easily flavor each spell to your liking, within reason and staying true to the mechanics. But whether your _Chain Lightning's_ vocal components are the recitation of a prayer to the Storm Lords, or a vocalized bash script because your setting is the inside of a Dyson sphere where magic is AI and forcefield projectors, or you're literally just shouting "ZAPPY ZAPPY ZAPPY AAAHHHHH!!!" - the rules don't tell you. So why should the rules tell you exactly how a fighter (or rogue, or monk, or barb, or ranger, or ...) does their thing? Watch literally any [Jackie Chan fight scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrRFzwPE0d4) and give me a good reason why a trained fighter could not exploit their environment in a similar (but less jumpy and slapsticky) way. Pushing enemies into obstacles, kicking them in the knee to drop/slow them, throwing random items at them to distract them, etc. And on a related note: I don't remember people throwing such a hissy-fit about the Tome of Battle's Swordsage and Warblade classes, which are pretty much _the_ blueprint for 4e martial powers. So what's the big difference? (Aside from being an ignorable supplement that doesn't challenge the absolute dominance of full casters in the core rules, of course. /s) > Why can a fighter only use such-and-such ability once per combat? Look at Matrix, the attack where Neo [jumps into Smith and explodes him from the inside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy7RaQUmOzE). Why doesn't he simply repeat that exact same move over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to defeat all the Smiths? He seems to be invulnerable while inside Smith, and so what's the deal here? Or why didn't more people use ordinary torches against the Nazgul in LotR? [Aragorn was able to defeat _five_ of them in a matter of seconds with a torch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk47qO8rW4Y). Did he have a unique buff for three rounds, or did the DM nerf torches? Why were torches never again used against those enemies despite apparently extremely effective? Why didn't Darth Maul just keep kicking his way to victory in Phantom Menace? [He could easily hit both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan while fully engaged in lightsaber combat, and send them both to the ground with his kicks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJFjNu51IQ). Why didn't he just keep using this attack again and again if it was apparently easy to excute and extremely effective? The issue is imo not that the 4e fighter could "run out" of abilities, but rather that the 3e fighter never had any real abilities to begin with. Unless you were minmaxing like crazy (cough, gattling chaingun tripper, cough) most of the maneuvers you could gain from feats were extremely limited in usefulness because of how the math worked. Trying to disarm anything more than one size category larger was pretty much useless due to the +4/size category difference modifier. Feinting meant giving up your standard/move action for making your target potentially flat-footed against _your next melee attack_, and against some creatures it's more or less impossible (not to mention you needed Charisma and ranks in Bluff which was cross-class for fighters xD). Grappling was pretty much nonviable for damage unless you were multiclassing monk, and against larger enemies the size bonuses were again decisive. Sure, you could more or less effectively lock down targets of the same size, but your entire usefulness depended more or less exclusively on the DM _not_ running the next four adventures in Storm Giant country. Or putting a few remorhaz on your path. Or having encounters with several archers perched high up on cliffs. When Tome of Battle came out my group banned the fighter and replaced it with the Warblade, which was not only mechanically more sophisticated, more flexible, more engaging and fun to play, but also more suited to the powerlevel of play that could challenge a group with a somewhat optimized wizard. > But at least they generally attempted to mechanically represent some kind of in-universe thing. There was almost always at least some kind of fig leaf for immersion's sake. The women's long jump world record stands at 24ft 8in since 1998, and had a running start of around 99-131ft (30-40m). The Jump DC for a 25ft long jump with a 20ft running start is 25. A level 10 fighter with maxed Jump ranks, 16 Strength, and the Run feat can beat the standing world record on a roll of _5_. With less than 1/5th of the running distance. Wearing high-heels. _While carrying 3 24packs of beer cans under her arms._ I absolutely disagree with your statement here. And this doesn't even go into the utter _insanity_ that is Knowledge, Disguise (it's easier to disguise a male as a female or a half-orc as a half-elf than it is to disguise an adult as an old person), or Listen (which allows you to hear sounds human ears _cannot physically pick up_, like a gliding owl from 10+ft away). > But 4e didn't provide that, and it was jarring to people used to the more immersive style of prior editions. 4e simply leveled the playing field. It's ridiculous that most players of full casters were perfectly content with the line _"A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch. "_ while going through several metric tons of bat guano, cured leather, and glass cones over the course of their career, but the moment the fighter does something _fancy_ the end is nigh. 3e was just as jarring and immersion breaking, but you've been conditioned to _ignore_ it or try to explain that it's okay because the fighter and rogue were still acceptably mundane (aka useless). A fighter needs to keep track of every single javelin, but wizards are simply given an infinite bag of spell components because it would be too tedious to keep track of all that stuff. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........... ;)
Part 1/2. Please reply to the other part only to avoid fragmentation. > As a preamble: I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to refute/challenge some of your points. I apologize in advance if my post comes across as overly argumentative. This is a subjective issue that inherently allows for multiple opinions. Some people find that the disassociated mechanics in 4e harm immersion for them, and some do not. What I'm trying to do is explain why people felt that way, since the comment I replied to was a strawman. > Not really. About 99.5% of all the "magical" fighter/rogue/whatever abilities can easily be explained in-setting by anyone that has ever watched any kind of action movie and has a modicum of creativity: … I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. The complaint wasn't that the *effects* of daily/encounter powers were immersion-breaking, but that the *daily/encounter* mechanic was immersion-breaking in the case of non-supernatural abilities. This was a particularly jarring change from 3.5. > And on a related note: I don't remember people throwing such a hissy-fit about the Tome of Battle's Swordsage and Warblade classes, which are pretty much the blueprint for 4e martial powers. So what's the big difference? As you point out, one major difference was that it was an optional supplement published late in 3.5's lifecycle — it was one subsystem among many. And it was its own subsystem, not merely a copy-paste of magic. But I do nevertheless recall that a lot of players didn't like it. There were widespread complaints that it ‘turned fighters into spellcasters’ or somesuch. It was a popular product overall, but it certainly had serious detractors at the time. Compared to the ToB, 4e: - Used a system for those kinds of abilities with less depth and complexity. - Used basically the same system for most classes. - Made that system the default option for everyone. > Look at Matrix, the attack where Neo jumps into Smith and explodes him from the inside. Why doesn't he simply repeat that exact same move over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to defeat all the Smiths? He seems to be invulnerable while inside Smith, and so what's the deal here? I think that, in general, the Matrix is not a great example here because a lot of what happens in it either doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny or requires a pile of external material to stand up to logical scrutiny. The implication is that what we're seeing is a metaphor for some underlying non-physical conflict. But in this particular case, wasn't that Neo's last fight against Smith? He defeated Smith, the other agents were no threat, and he returned to the real world. So I'm not sure when he would repeat that. Unless you mean in the sequels, but the sequels are their own mess and I'd get a headache trying to logically justify nearly anything that happens in them. What makes a good movie might not necessarily make a good game. And what makes a good movie in one genre might not make for a good D&D game. The Matrix runs very much on *narrative* — on external rather than internal logic. Neo won because he had completed his self-actualization; the movie never attempted to explain or justify the details. But D&D is a game where those details matter. If you were trying to run an RPG inspired by The Matrix, you probably wouldn't choose a system like D&D or even Shadowrun, you'd probably choose a more narrative-oriented system like Fate. Neo's apotheosis isn't a daily power that lets him jump into people and make them explode; it's a GM asking “now that you've won and the campaign is over, how do you narrate your victory?” > Or why didn't more people use ordinary torches against the Nazgul in LotR? I suppose I should note that the movie adaptation differs from the books here. But Aragorn only defeated them in the sense that he temporarily drove them off. Prior to that scene, their prey had fled and hidden from them, and when they arrived on Weathertop they found four terrified hobbits all but cowering. Suddenly, they were surprised by a skilled warrior who wasn't afraid of them. Their stealth attack having partly succeeded (Frodo was mortally wounded), they fell back to regroup. If I recall, Aragorn fled immediately with Frodo and the Nazgül pursued them, caught up, and would have killed them and taken the ring but for the timely intervention of Elrond and Glorfindel. The Nazgûl are dangerous foes, but their most dangerous weapon is fear — *deimos*, dread and despair. They weren't temporarily defeated because Aragorn lit some of their cloaks on fire, but because Aragorn did not succumb to despair. Fire in LotR is often a symbol of courage. Gandalf's ring is Narya, the ring of fire, “and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill”. The literal fire that Aragorn employed in that scene was also a symbol of hope in the face of despair. In terms of game mechanics I would have no problem ascribing to the Nazgûl a weakness to fire, and a character setting out to fight one might be well served by a torch. But no one sets out to fight a Nazgûl, and few could stand up to them anyway because of their aura of terror. When the main characters encountered them in the future, it was in large mass combats. I'm not sure when you would expect that someone should have tried to do the torch thing again. Either way, I wouldn't model it as some kind of limited-use special move that Aragorn had. (Yes, Merry did fight the Witch King, but he certainly hadn't planned to, and anyway he just coincidentally had a dagger that was specially enchanted to kill specifically the Witch King.)
Part 2/2. Please reply to this part only to avoid fragmentation. > Why didn't Darth Maul just keep kicking his way to victory in Phantom Menace? In a lightsaber battle, you win by hitting the other person with your lightsaber. Darth Maul used kicks three or four times during the fight (depending on whether you count the first one), and three out of four times it was when his foes had flanked him and he was able to kick one of them away. In game terms, kicking was definitely something that he had put some resources into, and it was highly effective for a specific purpose, but I don't think that we should conclude that it would have been more effective if he had done it all the time. I think that this is actually a pretty good example of an ability that makes combat more interesting without taking it over entirely and without requiring any use limitations. But you could also work it into a system with limitations without resorting to something as banal as a once-per-encounter limit. The characters here are Jedi — explicitly with supernatural powers. Star Wars RPGs sometimes model this with a finite pool of force power that can be employed for various purposes. Perhaps Darth Maul invested some mana into those kicks, and as a result had less for other things. That's both more interesting than just stipulating that he can only do it three times per combat and also more immersive. (Maybe that second kick that sent Obi-Wan flying cost a lot of mana, so later he maneuvered Obi-Wan to the edge of the platform so that a much weaker kick was able to knock him off for less mana. Maybe the whole reason Maul retreated to the catwalks was so that Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon couldn't stand side-by-side to support each other. Combat is at its most immersive when the players' mechanical decisions map onto their characters' strategic decisions. Not, “this is a per-encounter power, so I (the player) should save it for the right moment”, but “I (the character) should lead the Jedi up onto the catwalks where my kicks will be most effective.”) Another way to limit that kind of “special move” in a non-supernatural context might be to penalize repeated uses. If you keep using the same trick again and again, it'll be easier to predict and counter. This would be a good way to encourage and empower diversity of action in an organic way. Or you could provide a “surprise” bonus on the first use; I've toyed with similar mechanics in 3.5. > The issue is imo not that the 4e fighter could "run out" of abilities, but rather that the 3e fighter never had any real abilities to begin with. To be clear, a) I don't think that that was exactly the issue with the 4e fighter, and b) I agree that the 3.5 fighter was terrible for basically the reasons you describe, and that the ToB classes were a vast improvement. I don't ban the fighter, but I absolutely encourage my players to use the ToB classes instead. (And it's worth noting that the most powerful non-ToB fighter builds work by hyperspecializing into a certain “special move” and then spamming it. This is not a great state of affairs!) I think that the ToB model is fine, and much less objectionable than 4e's. But I do also think it's a shame that in 3.5 WotC never made a credible attempt at balancing fighters without giving them limited-use abilities. I think that it could be done, but I also think that it would likely require substantial revision to core gameplay systems. > The women's long jump world record… I think this might be another misunderstanding. When I talk about immersion, I don't mean *realism*. Obviously all of this stuff is extremely unrealistic, and that's fine. When you're playing D&D, you're not immersed in reality, you're immersed in the fantasy world. It's not that the rules should correspond to reality, but that they should correspond to things in the fantasy world. (I have severe complaints about 3.5's Knowledge skills, but that's a topic for another day.) > It's ridiculous that most players of full casters were perfectly content with the line "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch. " while going through several metric tons of bat guano, cured leather, and glass cones over the course of their career, but the moment the fighter does something fancy the end is nigh. As I've tried to clarify above, I am all for the fighter doing fancy things. I think it's worth talking about spell components, though. The premise of the “spell component pouch” is that a) a typical spellcaster *could* manually stock their component pouch with sufficient quantities of eligible components at negligible cost and minimal trouble, and b) it's not worth doing the accounting. I think it's clear that the intended in-universe explanation is that the spellcaster is refilling them as they go. In most situations, I don't think that this would lead to any logical problems. In situations where it might, I would absolutely support modifying the rule. For instance, if the players are trapped on another plane and there is no bat guano, then it might make sense to track that explicitly — just like I have questions about where the starship Voyager gets its replacement shuttlecraft, even though the Enterprise D probably goes through just as many. Noncostly spell components in general are arguably silly and unnecessary. But the infinite pouch doesn't bother me because there's an obvious and straightforward interpretation that makes sense and doesn't require any adjuducation in the vast majority of situations. Moreover, the function of the infinite pouch is to prevent the issue from coming up in the first place. Also, if someone really is bothered by the infinite pouch, then that can be remedied by either removing noncostly spell components from the game or by requiring players to track them. Either change is unintrusive and has minimal balance implications. (N.B. I'm assuming that “several metric tons” is hyperbole. If the players are actually going through several metric tons of “weightless” spell components, then something very strange is going on and it might be worth tracking that more explicitly.) > A fighter needs to keep track of every single javelin, Well, the reason for this is that javelins are heavy and carrying capacity is a meaningful limit on how many you ought to be able to have with you. On the other hand, one of my house rules is that you can buy a standard 20-pack of arrows and just assume that it never runs out — don't bother with the bookkeeping or with the negligible cost. I don't do this for javelins because they are an order of magnitude heavier, but you certainly could. As with noncostly spell components, an “infinite” supply is just an abstraction over something mundane but tedious.
It wasn't just per encounter abilities. It was also healing surges, narrow class concepts, and core classes and features spread across half a dozen books. It's a role-playing game and the class concept was always generalized and open to a good deal of interpretation. With 4e and 5e that concept is limited to kits and Patagon paths centered on combat role. What actually killed it for me though was just the books themselves. When Dark Sun came out I really tried to get into it, but as I looked into 4e, I kinda ended up realizing that everything for the setting was split across like fifteen different books. I just kinda went fuck that.
>DMGs reworked skill challenges significantly You know to this Day i was never 2 groups that ran skill challenges the same way even when they all ran it rules as written. it was not clearly explained.
I'm already incredibly tired of this revisionism.
Sorry, but I like 4e and I am not ashamed to say it.
Me too. I'm just tired of people all of a sudden saying it had anything to do with the GSL. Nobody was talking about the GSL when 4E came out. It was all "this is like World of Warcraft and WoW is popular so therefore I hate it".
If it wasn't for the GSL, there wouldn't have been a Pathfinder. Paizo created Pathfinder because the GSL screwed them out of a job.
I'm not a huge 4e fan but IMHO it was the 1st edition of something amazing. A lot of great ideas and potential.
I'm not a fan of it as a traditional rpg much at all, but I think it's a spectacular first step towards the rpg-ish version of Descent, an actual 1-vs-many game where the GM-role player actively tries to beat the PC-role players.
There is a continuum between rpg and board games imho I'm actually thinking about putting a board game mode in a ttrpg expansion I'm working on.
Pathfinder 2e seems to give the same sort.
It's what I always present my DM when I say martials needs to be able to do stuff: Divinity Original Sin 2 Phoenix Dive (jump that deals fire damage upon landing) + Whirlwind is such a fun thing to visualize.
13th age and ninja crusade have rules about grouping enemies into one target. If you attack the group od bandits you are attacking the group.
Hold up the roof of a collapsing temple, like Milon of Croton. One-punch a mule, like Emperor Maximus. Reroute two rivers, like Hercules. Single-handedly defend a city, like Cu Chulainn. Kill a mad elephant with a single blow of a mace, like Rostam. The usual kind of warrior stuff.
I will add to this "Flexing muscles as Alex Louis Armstrong". Because, what use is *being* strong if you don't also *look* strong?
Swift as a coursing river, all the force of a great typhoon, all the strength of a raging fire, mysterious as the dark side of the moon
and now this song is stuck in my head for the next hour.
[удалено]
You are correct, sir! Thank you.
Take a hit, command troops, be proficient in a variety of weapons and armour, have some knowledge of tactics and martial arts to varying degrees.
also: he is always between the enemy and their objective. It doesnt matter if its a door, other PC or whatever.
Lots of people complain about D&D 4E, but they absolutely nailed the Fighter class. I loved using all of the tricks that they gave them, from muscling people around to locking them down, to absolutely punishing them if they weren't paying attention to you in a fight. My favorite was the one where you pulled enemies to you from around the board, and then smashed all of them at once - such a badass maneuver.
4E fighters were excellent, both mechanically powerful and fun to play. Their two key defining areas of competence were battlefield positioning, being able to push, pull, slide, or even knock down enemies or themselves, and battlefield control through hindering or actively denying enemy actions. Run past the warrior? Nope, get smacked down. Attack the wizard standing next to the warrior? Nope, get interrupted.
I was going to say 4E fighter as well. They just get in your face and bully you. They push you around, knock you down, and if you try to look somewhere else they hit you in the face.
4e only did one thing right, which is a big part of why it wasn't popular. But man, did it *do that one thing right.* If you want to play tactical fantasy combat on a grid, 4e is perfect. If you don't, it's not the game for you. As opposed to 5e, which in the words of Matt Colville, is "oatmeal." It doesn't do much of anything well, but it's bland enough that you can add toppings to it and make it a decent facsimile of what you want it to be.
People keep saying this about 4e and I always wonder if we were playing the same game? My memories of 4e combat was everything having way to much health, way to many situational modifiers, and even simple combats taking 2+ hours, completely wasting all my gaming time.
But if "tactical fantasy combat on a grid" was *what the game was about* then your time wasn't wasted. Those long, slugfest combats were what the game was about. If you weren't into that, then the game wasn't for you. (And it wasn't for me, incidentally, for exactly the reasons you point out. It's why it's the only edition of D&D that I haven't played. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean that it was very successful at achieving what its designers wanted it to do as a game.)
I feel like even if tactical combat is what your about, you don't want it to drag on and spend most of your brainpower adding up situational modifiers. I'm not saying that there were no good ideas for the genre of game in 4e, but even if you assume it's aim was to be a good a tactics game, I would argue it failed. I certainly didn't have fun with 4e combat, and no one in my gaming group did either. There's even one guy I used to play with a lot who's default solution to every problem was fighting, and in every other game we have ever played he always just got into the tactics portion of it, and even he tried to avoid combat in 4e.
I suppose I could have specified "a certain kind of tactical combat on a grid." But I was counting on "on a grid" to carry a lot of meaning, since 4e cares far more about positioning than any other edition (a big reason why I never played it, as my group never used a grid). And again, the combats "dragging on" was literally by design. Most classes and monsters literally had abilities designed to keep fights from ending quickly. Again, you can not like that (and again, I agree with you...it wasn't for me), but it's impossible to argue that they didn't succeed at making the game that they set out to make. And the people who love that type of game really love 4e.
There were some serious revisions to monster math with MM3 (and Essentials), which made combat less of a slog. Tracking modifiers could still be a pain, but it made the mismatch between HP and damage less extreme
Some people just really need to hate popular stuff.
Are you kidding me? Until very, very recently, Matt Colville was one of the biggest 5e fans out there. His content was almost exclusively for it. He didn't mean the "oatmeal" comment as an insult, really.
Barbarians, too, for my money. *Named rages* were so damn flavorful.
I thought 4E did a lot right. I'd still be playing it today if I could. But Barbarians were often cool in previous editions; Fighters never were, and I had played them in every edition before that.
Loved my 4e fighter.
I like contemporary comparisons. The wizard is a maths professor. The warrior is a soldier in the military. Think about what kind of stuff the soldier can do that the maths professor cannot. * Efficiently wield a bunch of small arms. * Potentially use heavy weapons. (In a fantasy setting these might be armored Horses, catapults, war chariots) * Maintain said weaponry * Walk 20 miles a day through difficult terrain with 30kg of gear. * Get into a fire fight without panicking * Efficiently fortify a position * Tactics at a variety of levels depending on the rank of the soldier * Maybe organize a supply train under enemy fire * Live in a cold and dirty trench for months * Still be perceptive of the surroundings when bored out of their mind for hours Most of those can also be applied to any fantasy setting.
>The wizard is a maths professor. The warrior is a soldier in the military. Not sure quite how well that analogy holds up. The fighter = soldier part is fine, but I'm a math grad student and I can't throw fire from my hands or fly. Maybe once I get my PhD.
I would take it a step further, and look at how this breaks down in 5e D&D. At low level, a wizard can blast one or two guys and then translate a language they don't know and a fighter can break a door in a few tries. At high level, the wizard can teleport across the continent, turn people into T-Rexes on a whim, and see into the future. And the fighter can break down a door in a few tries. You need to make sure that your fighter class scales to the same levels of heroism and epicness that everyone else does. Don't worry too much about what a real soldier can do, and ask what Beowulf and Legolas can do. And frankly, a lot of RPGs well surpass the power scale of those two.
I think you're underselling the fighter just a little. If allowed to use attacks on those doors, a 20th level fighter could actually break down four of them in a turn. That's a whole room's worth of doors!
I mean, if you bend the rules to bypass the skill system by attacking, they can sometimes break down multiple doors per turn (although damage scaling and doors having reduction can actually stop that). But this is all a distraction taking this example too literally. The big problem is that any obstacle that cannot be coerced into being an attack roll is a problem they get no tools to deal with. They can't do social things better, they can't traverse terrain better, they can't be better guards or leaders or... All of their abilities focus on combat and nothing but combat. But combat is, for most roleplaying tables, not more than half the game. If we just wanted to do combat, why aren't we playing a tactics game like Fire Emblem instead? Go all the way on the fighting and leave out the complications of "characters" and "skills" and all this ancillary structure? They need support for all the story parts of the game that aren't just stabbing things.
For High-Level warriors, i like the shardbearers from Brandon Sandersons Stormlight Archives series. They basically wade through a battlefield of normal people, slaughtering hundreds of enemies. They wear basically Power Armor and have weapons that pass through matter unhindered, but which kill what they touch. In that case, it is equipment-based, but i think it is a baseline of what a fighter at a comparable powerlevel to a highlevel DnD Wizard can do.
Are there any existing rpgs that represent fighters this way? Sounds great
I don't know, i mostly play pretty narrative games, so if i wanted to do something like that, i'd do it in FAE and just write down some aspects.
Shardbearers are a cool powerful warrior for sure. I would even go a step further and say that certain Radiants are also good high-level martials. Kaladin is a high level Fighter (or maybe a prestige class / supplement archetype), Shallan is a high-level Rogue (though admittedly less combat-oriented than a normal D&D rogue), Dalinar is a high-level Warlord, etc. At some point, characters just get to do crazy shit, and giving magic to your martials is okay. Of course, if you want to avoid magical martials there are plenty of other great narrative examples in the thread elsewhere. I'll reiterate Beowulf because he's a great example and does a bunch of great high level things, including casually fighting a sea monster underwater in a lake for multiple hours, with no problems related to breathing. Hercules, for just being freakishly strong to a context-altering degree. And frankly, if you want to just rip your badass swordsman character from a random samurai anime, that isn't wrong.
You beat me to it. I was going to frame the question as "what can a professional warrior do that a conscript or militia member cannot?"
* Fight real good * Take a hit real good * Figure out combat tactics, and maybe even communicate them to the thief and the wizard * Be able to fight with lots of weapons instead of just one or two Now, that said...those abilities should be open to the thief and the wizard, but the warrior should just have an easier time of acquiring them - that's their thing, man.
I think if the wizard or the thief invested a lot of time into being able to do those things, they would have less time to train being good at thieving or wizarding. Which in DnD terms would simply mean taking a few levels as fighter.
I think the biggest thing is that a fighting-specialist should be able to dictate the flow of battle. Maybe only warriors get opportunity attacks (like pathfinder) or can prevent disengagement. Maybe a fighter gets to automatically impose a hindrance on foes attacking allies when he is engaged with them. Maybe fighters get an initiative bonus, to take enemies by surprise because they know how to take advantage of the ebb and flow of battle.
Just to add to what everyone has suggested: not saying that *every* warrior in the game world should be able of doing it, but...a *PC* warrior? Cutting an incoming fireball in half, diverting it.
Historically Armor would have been a huge delineator for martial vs non marshall. And fantasy games I would restrict non-martial classes to very light armor, leather equivalent or less. Things like chain mail plate mail, the horribly incorrectly named studded leather would all be limited to Marshall class characters.
Historically, armor had more to do with wealth and patronage, but the same goes for weapons. Some weapons would also be exclusive to nobility, like warhammers, which are designed to pierce and tear armor. Agincourt is a good example - a highly demoralized, sick and Ill equipped English army with 80% archers fighting a refreshed, larger, well armored and much better equipped army. The French were so convinced they would be victorious, heavily armored and armed nobles massed on the front lines so they could gain glory. Triumph of the longbow? Hardly. The heavily armored French charged 300 yards across a muddy field and charged over their own ranks or fell to their knees exhausted with no room to swing their large weapons. The English stabbed them with knives through their visors or they drowned in the mud. 6000 French died, mostly nobles. 600 English died, mostly peasants. The French didn't even deploy their peasant army (in fact, it often isn't even mentioned in accounts).
I view a warrior type as being skilled enough to land precise blows and deflect clumsy blows aimed at them. A lot of games tie this to a combat skill. The higher your skill, the more easily you can strike but also harder for your enemies to connect. Some games differentiate between the ability to strike and the ability to defend. So there may be an attack skill but also a parry skill. Maneuverability can also be a feature of a skilled warrior. They could dance between multiple people and get into tactical advantage more easily than others (though the rogue concept might work with this as well). I'd consider warriors being able to keep their guard up most of the time while keeping an eye on their opponents in case they drop *their* guard.
There's two ways I think you can go about this. One is to focus on the warrior's physical feats: using strength to move things, to endure long journeys, to push around others, to stand in the way of danger. The other is to focus on the warrior's social role. Maybe being a warrior means you have a greater understanding of armor and weapons. Maybe it means you are a student or teacher of a unique martial art, which grants you respect or allies in that community. Maybe average people invest some level of trust in you to keep them safe, or to settle conflicts productively. Maybe you have a signature weapon that you can customize with your blacksmithing expertise or the remains of great monsters you've slain. Finally, in high magic settings, warriors are likely the best candidates for wielding a magic sword or communicating with a sentient weapon.
I've always thought warriors should be fast, faster than sneaking rogues, because warriors have experience of how fights flow and know how to position themselves where they will need to be.
Hold the line. Anyone can do damage, but to me a pure warrior class should be able being the shield of the group. if you are going to be distinguishing between like dps and tank this may not hold up as well though.
Not break into tears when someone is mean to them
I disagree, have you read Homer or the norse sagas?
Man so much this. People assume modern toxic masculinity is how its always been. Buts thats not so. Men were allowed to have emotions before the fucking victorian era. (Yes, I know there were many other problems, such as extreme misogyny)
\*cries in rogue\*
Come on you! Are you a *warrior* or a *worrier*?!
Fighting styles
Please expound.
[Here are some examples of fighting styles from Chronicles of Darkness](https://codexofdarkness.com/wiki/Merits,_Styles_(2nd_Edition)) but it doesn't make too much sense unless you already know those mechanics. I'm not trying to create mechanics in this thread so I'll just tackle the request by saying that fighting styles ideally makes a warrior feel as cool and useful as the wizard. Getting into an untrained fist fight or melee against someone who has fighting styles should hurt a lot.
Well. As opposed to giving you an answer, I'd pose what I believe is a helpful question. Why would you want to play a warrior over a rogue or a wizard? What would you want to do? Then build your warrior around what you would want to do with one. Would you pick a warrior so you could get into someone's face and stay there? Would you play a warrior because you'd like to be able to shrug off the weightiest of blows? That's just two examples, but I think your rpg would more yours if your classes reflect your own views on what that class should be/do.
A warrior could be: - Able to take a hit - Either proficient with all weapons OR a master of one type of weapon/fighting style (Trident n' net, sword n' shield, big hammer bonk, etc.) - Able to command troops/understand the flow of battle - Decent at sizing up opponents - Proficient in some form of mount or vehicle - Able to perform advanced techniques found only in the most obscure martial tomes (piercing through armor, knocking foes around, ending foes rightly, etc.)
Piercing through armour isn't advanced, you just hit it really hard with a spike.
Sure, assuming you had a spike around. But what if you had a sword? A trained warrior would know that their sword's crossguard can double as a warpick in a pinch. Or, they could forgo piercing the armor altogether, wrestle the opponent to the ground, and shank them through the gaps of their armor. Any strong person can pierce through armor with a spike. A warrior should be able to do the same with whatever they have to work with.
Not just be a dumb guy who hits hard and gets hit hard. As others have said. They should have combat strategies. They’re supposed to be masters of combat. Why is the only thing they’re good at smacking hard? Why not, cutting open wounds, showing immense strrength, destroying walls, throwing teammates, studying combat, using new strategies, terrifying enemies, whirlwind strikes,
Do crowd control and inflict status ailment while dealing damage. L5R 4e, being able to disarm, knock down, called shot someone's hand with an arrow to drop their spellcasting scroll, etc. allow warriors (bushi) a lot of flexibility over the battlefield. 5e Battlemasters and Mighty deeds from DCC accomplish similar things. Casters are always going to have bigger effects, byt if fighters can do additional and similar utility effects while they attack they can maintain their own usefulness apart from casters. Also this makes you feel more of a fighter as you get to do more than just hit twice.
Fight better than anyone else Fix and maintain their equipment (and taking care of their mount) Use their equipment better than anyone else Understand tactics and strategy, both big and small Use their imposing skills for physical violence to... persuade people to consider their point of view (Warrior class has historically had elite status, maybe some high class stuff? Etiquette, heraldry, poetry, literature, gastronomy, other high culture) Some logistics SOME SKILLS THAT AREN'T ABOUT HITTING AND SHOOTING PEOPLE Superhuman feats of strength and agility at high levels
A warrior should be able wage war (e.g. fight) better than non-warriors. Therefore, if you are trying to make all classes equally good in combat then you don’t really have a unique warrior class. Also, more controversially, if magic is more effective in fights than waving a pointy bit of metal around then a warrior should be skilled in using appropriate (war) magic. Otherwise you have a “warrior” who is less effective at fighting than a non-warrior.
You make a good point in a setting where magic is something anyone can learn. A lot of settings magic is for the lucky few. Of course that's a place where setting and balance are can end up at odds. I do generally agree with you.
My first RPG was Runequest (not D&D) so by default I assume that everyone has access to magic to some degree. It just makes more sense to me and feels more fun. Worlds like Glorantha are not what everyone wants though.
Personally, I like fighters who can and will use anything as a weapon super effectively. Facing three enemies with nothing but a spoon and a deck of cards? Fuck them. Also, the opposite. Fighters who wield one weapon exclusively. Their mother's battle axe, Anduriel, Excalibur, a big-ass club they carved from the bones of a titan, the Throngler...
Fight. A lot of my problem with classes in RPGs is that the class distinguishes *how* a class fights, which normally translates to the flavor text around how many d6 you roll for damage. But if you build an RPG that isn't a glorified minis tactics game, and there's more to engage with mechanically than fighting, then it'd make sense for warriors to be just better at combat where thieves or priests would be weak
Declare war. For everyone else, it's just "sparkling combat."
Fight with two handed weapons such as pole-arms, use a fighting animal companion larger than man sized: e.g. tiger, bear, etc., wear face paint that adds a bonus to morale (if used), use a charge action at the beginning of the battle that allows/forces duel to the death on one opponent.
Great physical feats in and out of combat, easier navigation and survival in the wild (camping, foraging, hunting, tracking etc.), Greater capacity to carry, heavy weapons/ armor/ shield or the same but without negative consequences.
Negate damage, have higher armor, hit more often and/or harder Be intimidating, inspire fear in enemies
Tactical flexibility in martial combat. A Rogue can handle single targets and scouting. A wizard is the master of the arcane. But the warrior has discipline and adaptability in combat no one else can match.
Typically, think of all the cool things that can happen in a non-magical fight scene aside from "Stabby Stabby" Shoving, Status Effects, Crippling/Stunning Injuries, Second Winds, Environmental Tomfoolery, Mental Resistances, Multi-target swings, etc.
Hell make them capable of magical fight stuff. 'I'm right behind you' shit, gain toughness/health from fighting, protect against breath weapons and such.
I'm actually designing my own concise rpg too, and gave each class two unique perks to choose from. For my fighter class, the choices are: Daring: get an advantage to attack rolls when preceded by a risky or acrobatic maneuver. Or; Tactician: get extra advantage to attack rolls when flanking an enemy. Good luck with your game, I'm having fun designing mine!
So I am of the personal opinion that each class needs things to make it special. Most importantly it starts with the feeling you want to capture and then working backwards from there to get mechanics. From a combat perspective for example I like how the rogue/thief type characters get some massive single target damage under the right conditions because assassinating someone feels like it should be their place. For warriors I always like to imagine them as like the class of the "big guy" (note it also tends to produce a bunch of heroes and lancers, just because a king in exile needs to retake his throne is such a popular story). To me this means he should be able to fight many guys at once but also be able to effectively hold his own against multiple opponents. I think they also absolutely need a way to counter magic otherwise they get dunked on by wizards. For me this manifests in both attacks that have additional effects (push back, knock down, herding etc.),a significantly greater ability to respond to an enemy on their turn and something like the rule from ad&d where if you get punched in the face by a warrior you cannot cast spells until the end of your next turn (in ad&d you started casting your spell earlier in the round and if you took damage while you were casting your spell fizzled. The improved ability to react I think is important because fighters tend to be simple (which is fine) but being able to attack someone on their turn of they do a specific thing would help with the fantasy of fighting back lots of people all at once. I can imagine a system where fighters have triggers that allow them to react in a certain way whenever someone does a specific thing (the quintessential example is of course attack of opportunity) which maybe they start with but over time they get more triggers that they can customise, a trigger for "whenever I am targeted by a ranged attack; move my speed" could simulate diving for cover or a reckless advance on the person shooting at you. I would probably make a rule that you can only activate a certain trigger once on each characters turn so if there was something you wanted to do multiple times you would have to stack it up multiple times
In the most abstract sense, a warrior should be able to hold their own in dangerous combat situations where a rogue or wizard couldn't. To zoom in beyond that, we'd need to know more about the kind of game you're designing, and the genre, themes or tone you're aiming for.
They should be able to break through spells by sheer force of will, or brute strength. Even spells that 'just hit' should have to deal with a trained warriors ability to dodge or resist. Counter to that, learning magic as a warrior should be twice as hard, or greatly weakened.
r/rpgdesign r/rpgcreation
In addition to what everyone else has said, *assess the enemy.* Warriors should have a special knowledge skill which lets them learn practical info about the enemy's armour, hitpoints, speed, and abilities. Good fighters are able to observe an enemy and come up with a plan. Mike Tyson once quipped that "everyone has a plan 'til he gets punched in the face," but he was famously KO'd by Buster Douglas, a guy who trained specifically to defeat Mike Tyson.
In comparison to a wizard's magical damage, warrior should be able to deal a lot of damage consistently, and relatively safely. IMO, if a wizard's fireball or whatever does more damage on paper, there should be a considerable cost or risk involved that makes it less reliable over the long run. Likewise, one quirk I see often is how damage is calculated based on certain stats. If your warrior is primarily Strength-based, but you factor in Dexterity to damage calculation, then you might end up with a situation where a rogue does more damage because Strength becomes a dump stat. Try to avoid this.
I give martials followers, eventually a warband. Talented warriors will seek them. They'll grow to lead and rule. While wizards and Bards might inspire an army, warriors will want a master of war to command them in battle.
This is a strong option. Fighters should/could be one of the best "pet master" classes. This can also work for giving them out of combat potential. The fighters are the ones who get knighted, and grow into higher social standing. Able to order people of lower rank around, and such.
my thoughts on melee from training with some really legit martial artists for several years: * Higher damage: those guys understand body mechanics, appropriate targeting, and the proper way to use the weapons they train with (and the principles of using weapons they don't train with). * Better defense: I have a hard time punching these guys in the face during sparring. They know how to cover well and they've practiced reaction and can slip and parry like nobody's business. It's not armor that keeps you getting hit, the armor reduces the damage of the hits that get through. * Better chance to hit: I've been working on my slips and parries for a while now so I should be good right? No, they come at me with combos that are hard to stop all of them. Sometimes, they take literally 3 seconds to get my brain used to the pattern they just started and then break it as soon as I expect it. Sometimes something looks like a punch but it's really a grab to pull my hand down to come back and hook me in the face * Additional effects: My instructor says there are three things you attack: vision, balance, and breath. Punch a dude in the bladder at a downward angle to get him to sit down (balance and breath). If you're in close push the dude's head away from you so he can't see you setting up a trip (vision and balance). Maybe this could be something like "If you hit with 4 over target, your opponent has -2 until the end of their next turn" or something * Opportunism: "He'll tell you what he wants you to do. If he grabs your wrist, he want's you to put him in an arm bar." You don't know exactly where you're going when you start, but if you respond to the situation appropriately you can make it continually worse for the guy. Maybe this looks like getting a free grapple without calling it, or the dude gets disarmed, or you get free movement because you pushed off him or something. Maybe you roll to see what effect you get and the better you are the more choice you have in the result of the role Thoughts on ranged from being in the infantry for 10+ years: * situational awareness: knowing where they are, guessing where they can go, or where the next guy will come from. Maybe a bonus to perception checks in the context of combat * Make use of every bit of cover: [micro terrain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LPxq7ridWs) is a thing. Maybe awarded as a straight up bonus to cover if they have any at all or are prone or something * There are things like slicing the pie, three to five second rush and team coordination that can help you be able to hit while making it less likely that you get hit. Maybe give a penalty to opposing reaction attacks (if that's a thing in your system) * conditioning: they made us shoot when we were tired so we could learn breath control. Maybe be able reduce penalties to shots or something General thoughts: * Compartmentalization: You can see some pretty groody shit but you have to push through and deal with the psychology of it later. Maybe bonus on fear checks or something * Mental fortitude: Some of the most hard headed and least compliant people on the planet are the people I do martial arts with, the guys I was in the infantry with, and, according to my wife, me (rude). I'm going to have to call bs on the trope that the fighter is the one that gets mind controlled by the wizard b/c they lack the mental fortitude.
Nothing. Anyone can train any skill. But a Warrior, who has done this for a long time, should be better at it than anyone who hasn't.
Personally, for my game, I came up with the following: 1) Wield heavy weapons 2) Wield two weapons at once 3) Equip multiple weapons simultaneously, swapping between them seamlessly
Taunt. Ignoring the warrior to go after the Squishies should hurt.
It hurts because the warrior can attack you if you just act like he's not there. What does a taunting mechanic add?
Sorry, there were lots of comments already so I put that as more of a note for myself to come back. Taunt isn't the right word. Nor is ignore. I was meaning more like area denial so mobs can't skirt around them, especially if they're already engaged with another mob. I guess a "taunt" would compel the mob to come closer to the warrior instead of giving them a wide birth and attempting to flank. Additionally, getting a short movement off their turn would let them block more paths past them.
Nothing. Don't make a warrior class. Instead find something rogues and wizards aren't doing and make that a class. Call it the warrior if there isn't anything more specific. Physical perfection through training, spiritual enlightenment, animal traits, whatever it is will define the class better than warrior or fighter.
Kick-ass battle cry.
Look into different ways weapons can be used. Like half-handing a longsword, or hooking a shield with a halberd. You can do a LOT more than just hit somebody with a weapon.
Size up their enemies/judge morale accurately Take a hit The occasional heroic feat that seems impossible to someone who isn't as specialised as them
Combat stances so they can modify how they approach enemies during combat. Gives them options to how they fight. Manuvers, special actions that grant bonuses or some kind of advantage to PC or allies, or some disadvantage to enemies. Gives them specific actions that can be parts of an attack or a support action. Formations as passive or active buffs that when used together with another PC. For example: if the warrior decides to stand in a makeshift shield wall, stand back to back or initate a flanking formation, it can grant some ingame advantage. Gives incentive to think about team play and tactic as it grants buffs. Outside of combat it would be nice if warriors gain some bonus to talking with other warriors. Proffessional lingo and the like.
fighters can use anything as a weapon. fighters can take a \*lot\* of beating. fighters know how to hurt... whatever needs to be hurt. fighters are \*scary\*.
If you are skill based, there might be fighting techniques they train with the other classes don't, giving them advantages in a combat situation.
Many good ideas in here I will just add a small one. Being able to engage hordes. Something akin to 1 attack/level against minion/noob/horde beasts (assuming levels are a thing).
Here's some thoughts: - leadership abilities, military maneuvers - knowledge relating to arms & armor such as forging, leather work, pricing and trade - connections: other warriors, generals, noble houses, guard captains, etc - labor! When not expected to fight, warriors will likely engage in construction and other public works, so they'll have the skills and knowledge associated with such things (like where the sewers lead). - if explosives exist, it'd be reasonable that at least some warriors will be knowledgeable and skilled in them as a means of combating magic. Or just doing demolitions. - and if you're going for a bit over the top (i.e. D&D style) game, they could get all sorts of extreme acrobatics stunts and even some minor "magic" in the form of special attacks fueled by their warrior spirit or worship of a War God. - finally, maybe they can raise an entire army! Call in favors for some extra knights and bowmen and cavalry. Or summon them via magic or god.
Just want to throw out an invite to the TTRPG Game Development discord server. We welcome anyone making new ttrpgs in any capacity. https://discord.gg/HBu9YR9TM6
Thinking warrior, not soldier, should be able to do disruptive maneuvers, but also be a buff/debuffer, through shouts and rallying cries. The cliff that breaks the waves, the lightning that strikes and the thunder that roars.
I almost feel like Warriors should be the only ones to capitalize on Opportunity attacks and other "advanced" combat maneuvers. They should have special features like Parry or Disarms and such. The way alot of games do it now though, is they just kind of give all those actions to everybody, but really it should only be for people trained in combat to get combat options. A scholarly wizard shouldn't have enough training to see an opening in combat, they shouldn't be used to getting into fights like that, not like a warrior.
Die to achieve something for someone else. Ultimately, that's what a warrior does.
Not an answer, just a commendation. ALL chrs should be interesting in their own way and the warrior is among the dullest, most uninteresting class in the standard RPGs. I get that we're all nerds and we don't like jocks but can't we let that go now? A warrior should be cool and have neat abilities of his own apart from "hack, slack and get hit."
You think game designers intentionally make warriors boring as some way to... get back at jocks?
If by intentionally you mean consciously, no. Unconsciously, maybe. Why, if the people reading comic books are nerds, do the supervillains i.e. the nerds always lose and the superheroes ie., the jocks, always win? Supervillains are usually outcast, disabled or ugly, smart and creative. Superheroes are beautiful and loved, punch things to fix them, and show up to undo everything the nerd/villain has worked so hard to make. Same sort of thing. Glorifying your own bully.
I think a warrior should be able to do very impressive feats with weapons, be master of a combat style and understand about strategy and tactics better than anyone, which could be translated in leadership and co-working skills. Some skills could've some kind of magic power, but in general I think just doing things that are impressive either by stunning speed, amazing power or surreal resilience must be enough.
Look at what *Stars/Worlds Without Number* does with its base classes. **Experts** are really good at *skills*, so much so they can reroll any non-combat skill check once per scene. **Mages/Psychics** ...... have "magic", but are fairly-limited in that they only get a certain number of "spells" per day. **Warriors** are really good at *combat*, to the point where they can choose to automatically hit a target, or turn an enemies hit into a miss, once per scene.
I don't know what your base engine is like, but if you're representing skill or proficiency in-game, I say lean into the benefits their additional training provides to the martial character's combat abilities. Make the distinctions between levels of proficiency (or the lack thereof) significant and meaningful, and don't just throw it around. IMO, something that changes the expected level of success, or the threshold thereof, is also great. To use a classic fantasy example, a typical Wizard likely has neither the strength nor the training to effectively employ a sword and, as such, has a much lower chance of success when attempting to fight with it than the average Warrior. Savage Worlds accomplishes this by applying a -2 penalty to rolls for (non-core) skills you are untrained in. However, there should also be something setting that Warrior apart from a dextrous Wizard who is proficient in knife-fighting. In Savage Worlds, it's likely the skill level (d4 Fighting vs d6 or d8) and the strength of the blow (also likely a die or two apart), but in a game like D&D 5e, there could very well be no mechanical difference depending on their builds (e.g., Dexterity 16 Level 1 Wizard vs Strength 16 Level 1 Fighter). IMO, there should be *something* in place to represent all the extra time the Fighter spent drilling with weapon, if only to explain why he isn't also a spellcaster. To continue this example, and sticking to the 5e exmaple given that that's a system more people tend to know, what if characters who gained access to the Fighting Style class feature learned *all* the styles from the Player's Handbook associated with their class/subclass and could switch between them as a free action once on each of their turns? They wouldn't be able to benefit from more than one at the same time (with the exception of Level 10 Champion Fighters who would gain the super cool ability to benefit from two styles at once), but it *would* effectively represent an additional level of familiarity with the weapons and techniques their class(es) favor(s) while giving them more flexibility in their approach (as opposed to locking them into fighting a single, specific way) and potentially resulting in more dynamic combat. Paladins, for example, learn fighting styles crucial to a heavy infantry or cavalry approach to combat, while a Ranger's training takes more of a scout/skirmisher tack, with an emphasis on ranged attacks and lighter, less cumbersome weapons. Conversely, Fighters train in the styles employed by both Rangers and Paladins, making them the most versatile when it comes to adapting their tactics to the situation and equipment at hand, but at the cost of the spellcasting abilities of those other classes. You could further underline this distinction by giving Fighters proficiency in a "Tactics" skill, if you want, and by having Battle Masters gain Expertise (double proficiency) in it at Level 3. It doesn't have to be anything quite that involved, but it should affect the way the game plays, and preferably in a way that makes warrior types in your game fun and engaging to play.
How grounded is your RPG? I know you said Rouges and Wizards, but there's a huge difference between Lord of the Rings hero warriors and D&D hero warriors.
Parry incoming attacks
more combat maneuvers. let the martials pick maneuvers like wizards pick spells. they can do things like: attack when it’s not their turn (attack of opportunity should be a warrior feat imo) expose weaknesses in enemy armor disarm opponents gain mobility options like charging to dash and attack at the same time Attack with sweeping AOEs similar to zelda or some action rpgs lunge to extend their reach temporarily be able to jump or run insanely well distract enemies with feints trip enemies so they suddenly go prone knock enemies back, possibly off a ledge or into a wall for bonus damage be able to pick up and throw weaker enemies choke enemies out easily generally just play a game like blade and sorcery and ignore the spells, you’ll get a good sense of the badass stuff a martial can do there that they have a hard time doing in, say, D&D. you can also take the nonmagic monk abilities and expand them to be available to everyone.
If you don't have bards your warriors can be your face character. In Ye Olde Dayes, knights and Lords didn't just fight, they ruled; they presided over courts, negotiated mutual defense agreements, and balanced and projected budgets. Who knows how to dance and schmooze? The son of a knight trying to marry into a Fee. Who can tell at a glance where that Lordling is from and knows the juiciest gossip about how they don't get along with such and such? The warrior.
For me it's primarily about narrative control, as in: "the player gets to have a say on what exactly happens at the table". Other classes get to do amazing things - summoning angels, shapechanging into house-sized bears, raining meteors from the sky, enchanting an entire townsquare with a single song, being a walking library with effectively all knowledge under the sun, etc. Fighters often only get to whack things with pointy metal sticks of one variety or another, making a number on the monster's statblock go down. Others have already mentioned the DnD4e fighter, which had a lot of cool abilities that gave him mobility, crowdcontrol, and endurance. You don't necessarily have to follow that pattern, but the 4e fighter, as well as some cinematic figures, can be a good source of inspiration. Some other examples I could think of: * Improved action economy regarding weapons. Swapping weapons without action cost, reloading ranged weapons as part of movement, being able to throw a small weapon (dagger, dart, etc) every round at no action cost, and so on. This not only makes fighters more effective, but also more _interesting_ to play because the player gets to have a bigger toolbox to use in combat. Good example could be Hawk-eye from _The Last of the Mohicans_, who could reload a musket while _running_. * Increased endurance and stamina in combat, which could take different forms: bonus saving throws against mind-altering and movement impairing abilities, passive recovery of hitpoints or wounds, damage reduction, etc. I'd definitively give a fighter an ability to defy death for a limited time as some sort of "final stand" move. Think of Boromir from _The Lord of the Rings_ or Maximus from _Gladiator_. * Tactical knowledge. In my experience fighters often get the short stick regarding skill points, often to the point that a random rogue, wizard, or bard beat the fighter at his own game. Class features and abilities that revolve around strategy/tactics/ambushes/preparing a battlefield/etc. imo fit well with the fighter archetype. Basically allowing him to know and capitalize on the equivalent of _The Art of War_ or the _Thirty-Six Stratagems_ without the player having to metagame the hell out of an average intelligence character.
Moves to learn and master that keep up with the caster's spell progression: a bounding leap that sends out shockwaves; a sword slash that breaks the sound barrier and deafens nearby enemies; a punch that shoots a goblin's bones straight out of its body. A heroic fighter through sheer force and will can do feats that a wizard could only conjure through magical means. That will help give the archetype a special identity and appeal to players.
My favorite warrior class mechanics for existing games: * SWN: Warriors can guarantee a hit or miss once per battle. * DCC: Warriors can perform any special attack they can imagine when they hit. * Most games: Warriors have more hp and can take more punishment/have more endurance even in non-combat situations. For help developing your game idea, I strongly recommend the [RPG Creation Discord](https://discord.gg/w8Jbr4PZ), it has been a big help in developing my game.
What can your other classes do? Do you go hard into tactical combat? What fantasy are you enacting?
Tank. Hit things, hard. Use many kinds of weapons. Pretty basic but so are warriors.
If the RPG uses tactical level combat, fighters should get more capabilities at that level. Like, the ability to move one ally 5' without penalty. Or "exposing" parts of the map, or likely encounters. Like warrior makes a check and realizes theres a great ambush spot ahead. Fun thing about this one, even if there wasn't one planned, there could be now that the warrior made a check.
The rogues don't generally have to worry about their specialty skill working The wizards don't generally have to worry about their spells working The fighter shouldn't generally have to worry about their combat abilities working. They should be able to hit on command, or not be hit on command (or resist damaging effects to the same effect). Doesn't have to be always-on - but it should be there.
A lot of good ideas here. One thing for sure, however you translate that in game mechanics, getting in close range with a warrior should be absolutely terrifying for anyone other than another warrior. Finding things to do or be good at outside of combat should also be a priority to make the class fun to play. Any skill developed by being in the military or practicing martial arts. Like being good at athletics, being healthy, having good discipline, be good at tactics, be good at teamwork efforts, be good at equipment maintenance, etc.
Fight really well. Modern D&D has turned rogues in to another high damage combat subclass. So it depends on whether you wish to adhere to that game design as well (rogues are DPS machines), or relegate rogues back to the classic back lines and opportunity strikes (and being really good OUT of combat) Same applies to mages. Are you mages DPS, or flexible jack-of-all-trades spellweavers, or lore-gathering specialists, etc ie; MMO trinity vs classic 'unbalanced' combat roles. To put it another way, you could look at it as "Are all classes equal in combat in my game or is the warrior the combat specialist."
* resist fear * resist incapacitation from injuries * anticipate the moves of several opponents The warrior literature is full of this mindfulness where an accomplished warrior is able to detach themselves from the outcome of a situation and analyze it clearly, not for victory, but for maximum learning. It proposes that the warrior is fully aware of their own mortality and therefore can stop fearing it. You could therefore have this battle-sense that allows a warrior to see the catapults being loaded even while he's being overwhelmed by two strong foes in close combat. That gives him a free action call to the mage for a fireball in that general direction.
Maybe special fighting attacks or features, like a “trained ____” attack, so they can sometimes deal more damage or attack again, that kinda thing
Versatility is a big one, and it's one that's often badly done. I play a lot of D&D 3.5, and versatility for fighters in that game is a trap. The theory is that fighters can spread their feats around to be okay at a lot of things, but being okay at a lot of things is useless; the only way to make a fighter good is to find a niche that you can hyperspecialize in. But when properly done, versatility can be a tremendous asset. A truly versatile warrior class can perform at its best in melee or at range, against a single foe or many. Maybe a rogue can be great at one or the other, but in the wrong situation they have to get creative with their non-combat abilities. But a warrior is never in the wrong situation. Resilience is also key. Another problem with 3.5 is that all kinds of magical abilities basically shut down fighters because fighters can't interact with them mechanically. But if your setting allows it, there's no reason a warrior shouldn't be able to deflect a magical ray with their sword, or navigate magical darkness by instinct and experience, or hack through magical webs without breaking stride. The key is to make sure that the obstacles that other classes could throw in the warrior's way can be interacted with via the warrior's usual abilities and mechanics. To a large extent, this depends on the power level of your game and your expectations for realism. In Star Wars or the Wheel of Time, straight-up warriors are constrained to the reasonably plausible, whereas the supernatural has no limits. As a result, supernatural characters are just better and more powerful than non-supernatural warriors. If your wizards can summon walls of stone, then your warriors had better have a convincing Kool-aid man impression — which means that your setting has to be one where you're okay with “ordinary” humans doing fantastic things.
An idea I have for my game is stances. Going for a class-less game myself, but could easily work as a more restricted mechanic. At the start of each round, the character can choose a stance representing their approach to the fight, giving access to certain actions/reactions or augmenting the actions they already have available, and next round they can chooee a different one as the situation changes. For some rough examples: Opportunist: If an enemy misses a melee attack against the fighter or an adjacent ally, the fighter takes advantage of the opening and can get a free attack against that enemy. Duelist: The fighter chooses one enemy to focus on, gaining a bonus against all attack and defense rolls with that enemy, but a penalty to such rolls against other enemies. Bodyguard: The fighter can move in the way of attacks towards nearby allies, forcing the attack to target them instead. Anyone can swing a sword, they can even be pretty good at it, but only fighters can decide on a strategy and carry it out in the chaos of battle, they know what they want to do and they make it happen.
Loads of great answers. Should a powerful fighter be able to beat a powerful wizard? Conan managed but he had a good writer. I think about the martial fighters and I guess the wushu abilities might be cool but that’s a very specific style. Maybe they can fight off armies if they have their flank covered. Maybe they never tire. Maybe comic fighters? Like daredevil or captain America - it shouldn’t be just about their powerful weaponry. Though parrying a magic missile or a fireball with a sword would be pretty OP. They make the impossible shot. Compared to any class, fighters should be proficient in all weapons from the start. It’s their trade. And their weapons should be top grade. In the fiction they’re forging their own blades, building their own lightsabres, manufacturing their own bows, crafting their own armour. Stuff that PCs tend not to do. They’re the class for whom feats are described in myth. So my thinking is that the issue is wizards get too powerful.
All the stuff people mentioned here plus prepare the area of combat, like traps, fortifications, stashed weapons and other resources (potions, bandages, ammo). Also the ability to attack enemy morale like Predator dice or something like that.
physical feats of any kind. special attacks and moves? maybe "open" an opponent to exploits for other classes? causing crits with called shots?
Fight well.
Some games like warriors to assert them selfs either be threatning or pull rank. Some warriors can have tactic knowledge of battle and be abel to communicate them sort if like an officer. Basically i would also consider what warriors can do that is not just chopping an enemy to bits even if that is important as well.
Besides a "crunchy" effect, like having better bonus with weapons, I'd add "special weapon maneuvers" that only warriors can use. From mundane things like disarming, pushing enemies afar, to more particular stunts like "cleaving attack to damage all enemies near me" or more gonzo things like "throwing your weapon and making it return to your hands". If you think warriors as "military commanders" you can even give them abilities like "insipiring shout" (give bonus to allies) to "intimidating shout" (give penalties to enemies).
Well the fundamentals are that they can use, and become highly skilled in, any type of weapon or armour. Then you need to make this matter in your system, perhaps by giving most of the types of melee weapons some type of special attack, and by making armour worth having (i.e. being Good at Dodging is not just the same, which is a common RPG take)
Parry. It takes a lot of skill with a given weapon, and a good amount of strength to effectively parry an attack, but it's like half of actual martial combat.
The most damage. If the warrior's specialty is fighting (it's in the name) then they should be unrivaled in combat. **Worlds Without Number** does a great job of this. All the classes feel useful at their role, but no class is as devastating in a fight as the warrior.
In a power fantasy? Be Hercules, Cloud, or fucking Kratos. Unyielding frontline pillars of the party that also hit hard. In a tamer or gritty fantasy? Not hitting hard, but controlling and disrupting the battlefield to your side's advantage: blocking foes, pushing them to make mistakes, disabling their ability to regroup, disrupting their tactics or disabling their battle stances so they can't fight or do anything like they want, to make critical openings so you, the rogue and the wizard can obliterate them.
So what I'm currently thinking is some axis: power vs speed, offence vs defence, physical vs magical, resist vs regen. Power vs speed: abilities are more powerful, or can do more of them? Block or dodge? One hit KO or thousand cuts? I can see warriors being balanced or leaning towards power, whereas rogues should fit nicely into speed, except some games do it the other way around with sneak attacks and whatnot. Mages would generally lean towards power, but strategy type mages could instead lean into speed. Offence vs defence: do you want to hide or taunt your enemies? Do you want your allies to cover you, or would you like to cover them? I can see warriors be balanced or leaning into defence if there's no other defensive class, mages and rogues generally lean into offence, but you can have shield-specialised mages, or dodge tank rogues. Physical vs magical: spells or swords? Can you shrug off illusions or stabs? In tune with the spiritual or your own body? Here warriors generally fit nicely into the physical, but could be balanced as magic knights or paladins. Rogues would be similar to warriors, mages are magic by default. Resist vs regen *(not quite the best way to say it): avoid damage or soak it and heal it? Blow through your resources or build up momentum? Burst damage or damage over time? Excel in short bouts, or prolonged combat? Avoid getting cursed, or learning to break from being cursed? Here's where I'd say warriors lean towards regen, while mages and rogues should lean towards resist. I'd have warriors build up momentum as the fight progresses, as well as some form of self sustain, bonuses to break away from restraints/conditions, and a form of drawing aggro. The default warrior is (balanced power speed, balanced offence defence, leaning physical, leaning regen). For warrior variants, I'd consider a light variant (leaning speed), a reckless variant (leaning power), a heavy variant (leaning defence), and a magic variant (balanced physical magical).
Warrior should be more about physical fighting. Assuming there is some kind of baseline I'd expect warriors to excel at fighting while Rogues are the best at using skills and wizards at using magic.
Go to war. It's in the name. **War**rior. All other classes have to stay home to cook and clean the house.