D&D 5E Building a better Fighter

steeldragons · Jun 22, 2017

Quickleaf said:
That's not quite true. In AD&D and BD&D, fighters were feudal lords.

Hey there, old bean. Been a while! Nice to "see" you again.

I will take issue with this assertion.

Fighters were not "feudal lords." They were guys who fight...who, maybe, after however many levels, might build a stronghold and, yes, attract followers and mercenaries and the like. Like everyone else.

I believe in BECM (at the "C" point) you were, literally, just given/made a "Baron" but who was really playing BECMI at "C"? Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings all also became "lords" among their people. Clerics could build strongholds and attracted followers too (who didn't have to be paid, no less! iirc) Thieves got their hideouts and mages their towers with limited followers/apprentices.

Quickleaf said:
At least that was the narrative built into the mechanics as they leveled up. Other classes of the era did get followers, but not to the size and extent of the fighter who amassed an army. 3e marked a departure from that assumption, and that departure continued in 4e, and now in 5e. Nothing wrong with that – many modern players don't want to play feudal lords – but removing that bit of identity left a vacuum.

But there wasn't really ever a "I'm going to be a fighter because I want to be a feudal lord/that's the lord-class" built in to the class. Strongholds and followers were an automatic part of both B- & AD&D...for almost all classes. Certainly all of the original "big 4" [or "big 7" if you are talking Basic and count the demihumans]

Quickleaf said:
3e tried to fill that vacuum with a huge assortment of prestige classes & feats.

4e tried to partly filled that vacuum by making all fighters Those Who Defend Others.

5e tries to partly fill that vacuum with backgrounds.

Yes. I get the argument you're trying to make. I simply disagree with the premise. The Fighter had no "void" to fill. Certainly not by losing what every other class was getting [some version of] as well.

Quickleaf said:
I agree that Mike Mearls is on the right track that the fighter subclasses are a good place to provide identity (identity-as-a-tool-like-other-classes NOT identity-as-a-straightjacket).

I don't disagree, here. And making subclasses based on flavor are certainly easier (and more fun

than making them based around mechanics.

Quickleaf said:
Where you see absolute truth, I see self-fulfilling prophecy.

As is generally the way.

Quickleaf said:
Back when I read the AD&D2e PHB as a boy, I remember reading about figures from literature, history, and myth that the fighter class was inspired by: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Many of these men (and yeah they were all men sadly) were very charismatic, they were renowned, and people followed them. Many were also masterful tacticians. And most came from cultures with a warrior tradition.

Yes. I'm not sure I see what you're saying here. This is precisely what I am asserting. The Fighter class IS supposed to be any/all of these characters (and many more).

Quickleaf said:
My thought-experiment for anyone subscribing to "The Fighter Fights" theory is imagine the class was named "The Warrior" – it wouldn't make sense to say "The Warrior Wars", would it? A simple name change invites us, as designers & players/DMs, to wonder what it means to be a warrior, and (hopefully) makes us ponder the nature of a warrior when it comes to game moments, and not just those involving swinging swords.

Alright...ya know I enjoy a thought-experiment.

So...(and in answer to your query above, yes, it would, actually, make sense to say "a Warrior Wars." That's precisely what that means. But anyway, I'm happy with...) "A Warrior fights." That is their purpose. Whether it is for defense or conquest or glory or cash is immaterial. They fight...otherwise, what kind of warrior are they?

So, "The Warrior" class needs to be able to attack and deal damage effectively. Be able to attack, with weapons, more often and/or for more damage than other classes. Extra Attacks and Fighting Styles seems to have these bases covered. Granted, however, that farming these out to Pally's and Rangers, as well as Barb's and Monks getting Extra Attacks as well, makes all of that seem significantly less "Fighter-special/specific."

The "Warrior" need to be able to "take a hit." They need to be able to maintain and withstand a prolonged conflict when other classes would need to end/submit or retreat [or die]. Their higher HD and the Second Wind feature seem to have covered this base.

Given that the Warrior is a class dependent on their use of arms and their physical strength, then some measure of ability with their physique seems appropriate. I am amazed that it took us 8 [or 10 depending on who you ask] iterations and editions to end up with something like "Remarkable Athlete" and I think that type of feature suits the [base] Fighter-Warrior class beautifully.

It all seems fairly self-evident...and what we have already been presented with in the PHB.

My own homebrewed system's Fighter class (and I have wrestled with shifting the class name to Warrior, myself, many many times) includes a low level feature that provides interaction bonuses with other warrior types (of similar disposition/alignment) and warrior/battle-dominant cultures that are of lower level than the PC, "Veteran's Camaraderie." Basically, my thinking was, warriors are going to have a degree of implicit or explicit respect for other "brothers-in-arms." Those who have seen the horrors of war and know the ways of the battlefield. Ya know...how Jocks and Military Guys are [often] with each other IRL. So a minor bonus to interaction rolls didn't seem out of place...and wasn't a "combat-related feature" thing.

I guess that's all I've got in the thought experiment for now...whether "Warrior" or "Fighter" or "Wielder of the Sharp & Pointy."

Quickleaf · Jun 23, 2017

steeldragons said:
Hey there, old bean. Been a while! Nice to "see" you again.

Hola!

You as well.

Just for clarity - since this may be a longer conversation! - I want to state my premise:

The 5e Fighter works adequately as is, seems pretty popular overall, and consensus is it's relatively balanced (by whatever metric you use). I agree with all of that. Also. I love playing Fighters, but have consistently felt like the promise of the fighter in the fiction never quite played out in the game.

I'm asserting that "The Fighter Fights" design theory is fundamentally flawed because it neglects a whole other dimension to the Fighter class that has been excised from D&D without replacing it with something substantive. I believe it's possible to challenge "The Fighter Fights" and add to the Fighter's design without demolishing what's come before.

I will take issue with this assertion.

Fighters were not "feudal lords." They were guys who fight...who, maybe, after however many levels, might build a stronghold and, yes, attract followers and mercenaries and the like. Like everyone else.

Using the Rules Cyclopedia (BD&D) as an example, I respectfully disagree, sir!

Let's start with the narrative stuff before getting into mechanics. In the class descriptions from the Rules Cyclopedia, ONLY the fighter's class description mentions leadership. Specifically:

[SECTION]Rules Cyclopedia, p. 16Fighters may advance as high as 36th level. Their rapid advances, both in combat ability and in their amount of hit points, make them natural leaders in human settlements, especially small ones. High level fighters spend a lot of their time training and leading men-at-arms, clearing the wilderness of monsters, and expanding human settlements.[/SECTION]

Now, your counterargument is "Yeah, that's just fluff. EVERYONE in BD&D got roughly equal name-level features that made them political players."

Is that true?

The BD&D Cleric gets to choose, at 9th level, whether to be land-owning (in which case you get some loose guidelines on getting help from a church paying for your stronghold, and some lower level cleric assistants), or to be traveling (no mechanics are given for this, just fluff about preaching in the countryside or towns).

Let's compare that to the BD&D Fighter, who gets a similar choice whether to be land-owning (loose guidelines about getting a land deed from a lord, basically the same level of detail as the cleric), or to be traveling (and oh boy is this different than the cleric!). What's interesting about the choice of Paladin / Knight / Avenger for traveling fighters is that the involve swearing fealty – a Paladin must swear fealty to a church, and a Knight must swear fealty to a prince, king, or emperor, and even a chaotic Avenger must make an alliance with a chaotic church.

You want to run a 9th level fighter who has no ties to any kings or temples? That doesn't exist in BD&D. For other classes it does, but not for the fighter. They're intrinsically wedded to the feudal system of the implied setting, unlike any other character class.

Now, you may wonder "Yeah, but QL you've picked BD&D. For example, AD&D didn't differentiate the fighter like that at all!"

I invite you to look at the follower charts in the AD&D 2e PHB. Let's compare 4 classes – Cleric, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.

[SECTION]Cleric: At 8th level, a cleric attracts 20-200 fanatic followers of 0th level by establishing a temple.
At 9th level, a cleric can receive official support to build a temple at 1/2 price, but gain no other benefits/followers from doing so.

Fighter: At 9th level, the fighter attracts men-at-arms by establishing a castle and lands (10-40 well-equipped infantry or cavalry of 0th-level). The fighter is specifically called out as being able to tax these lands. Additionally, the fighter gets elite troops (10-30 mounted knights, elven fighter/mages, rangers, archers, or infantry shock troops of 1st level) and a sub-commander to lead them (5th-7th level fighter with magic items).

Paladin: The paladin doesn't gain followers.

Ranger: Rangers can build castles, forts, or strongholds, but do not gain any special followers by doing so.
At 10th level, a ranger attracts 2d6 followers (from black bears to fighters to weretigers).[/SECTION]

What's interesting is that the language for the fighter is decidedly different from the cleric (who also gets a bunch of followers, albeit lesser trained than the fighter), and is the only class in the AD&D 2e PHB to reference things like taxing and governing lands. While the difference is a little blurred with the cleric, it's very pronounced with other warrior-types like Paladin and Ranger. Clearly, the high-level Fighter is occupying a different role in the campaign world than them.

IMHO this establishes that the story arc for Fighters in BD&D and AD&D is "becoming a feudal lord."

Yes. I get the argument you're trying to make. I simply disagree with the premise. The Fighter had no "void" to fill. Certainly not by losing what every other class was getting [some version of] as well.

Now, if you're not convinced by my examples above, then - well, that's a wrap, as they say.

However, I'd further suggest that because other classes have multiple vectors of baked-in identity (e.g. take the Ranger), that the loss of strongholds & followers as part of the game affected the Fighter to a much greater degree (since strongholds & followers was the one vector of baked-in identity for Fighters).

As is generally the way.

Lol. I'm having flashbacks to The Gods Must Be Crazy.

I cited examples of "fighters" from myth & history from the AD&D 2e PHBYes. I'm not sure I see what you're saying here. This is precisely what I am asserting. The Fighter class IS supposed to be any/all of these characters (and many more).

Ah, what I meant was that that narrative of all those different names set a bar for me. It gave me an expectation...that I never felt was fulfilled. OK, as a fighter, I can inspire people like Hiawatha did...well, sure I could, if I role-played it (or made the right proficiency check). OK, as a fighter I can do some amazing sword tricks like Sinbad in the old movies...well, maybe, if the DM happened to be using the maneuvers options and was generous in his interpretations of my crazy ideas. OK, but people are going to know about me and maybe suggest I had divine parents like Perseus or Alexander the Great...if the DM said so, or maybe once you were high enough level.

"A Warrior fights." That is their purpose. Whether it is for defense or conquest or glory or cash is immaterial. They fight...otherwise, what kind of warrior are they?

That's the wrong question. Everyone in D&D fights. Heck, a rogue even fights with just weapons...they just do it from behind. What differentiates warrior traditions, in my understanding, is (a) cause, and (b) technique.

The better questions to ask are:

Why does a fighter fight harder?
How does a fighter fight better?
And are those answers substantively different from other classes in D&D?

For example, you might say: "Well, your cause - saving peasants or gold & glory - is up to you to decide, just like everyone else..." So there's no substantive difference. At least in BD&D at 9th level you got to choose who/what you were fighting for and that had some effect on your character's abilities & role in the world.

For example, you might say: "Well, a fighter chooses a Fighting Style, that's how..." But so does a Paladin and a Ranger. Not substantively different. You might say: "Well, a fighter attacks more often, and can use those attacks to Grapple, Shove, etc..." That's getting warm, IMHO, but not quite there as the low-level differentiation is sporadic due to Action Surge's limited use. IIRC at least in BD&D the fighter had some maneuvers only it got access to (possibly the dwarf did too).

I'm not saying I want to go back to BD&D and its assumptions. I'm illustrating that BD&D was addressing the right questions. What I'd like to see is a modern fighter class designed with those 3 questions in mind.

.........Total aside: I did a "Water for the World" 5k race for Matt Damon's charity and we carried 9 lbs plastic bags of water, which at the end were given to the Veterans Without Orders non-profit for their next mission. I'm not saying this is a direct parallel to D&D, but to me it's an example of the broader skillsets warriors have and the broader social context they exist in.

It all seems fairly self-evident...and what we have already been presented with in the PHB.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on those 3 questions. Are they the right questions to ask? And, if so, how would you answer them for the PHB fighter?

My own homebrewed system's Fighter class (and I have wrestled with shifting the class name to Warrior, myself, many many times) includes a low level feature that provides interaction bonuses with other warrior types (of similar disposition/alignment) and warrior/battle-dominant cultures that are of lower level than the PC, "Veteran's Camaraderie." Basically, my thinking was, warriors are going to have a degree of implicit or explicit respect for other "brothers-in-arms." Those who have seen the horrors of war and know the ways of the battlefield. Ya know...how Jocks and Military Guys are [often] with each other IRL. So a minor bonus to interaction rolls didn't seem out of place...and wasn't a "combat-related feature" thing.

I used to be very into external martial arts (my "knucklehead days", as I call them), so I know exactly what you mean.

That's a good example of branching out the fighter's design in a way that supports a broader conception of what it means to be a fighter, without undermining the flexibility of the class or its existing features.

Sacrosanct · Jun 23, 2017

Whenever I hear BD&D or Basic D&D, I do not think of Rules Cyclopedia. I think of Holmes and Moldvay, and the first boxed set of Mentzer. FWIW. By the time Rules Cyclopedia came out, it was referenced just as D&D. I don't think I'm alone in that.

Also, in BECMI, there is no mention of strongholds until 15+ level in the Companion set, and even then, every character can get one at name level, and it's more of an afterthought and not really a class feature. (In Moldvay it was mentioned at 9th level, but again, every PC could do it really for the most part (MU and thieves were a bit different).

*edit--spelling

Tony Vargas · Jun 23, 2017

Quickleaf said:
That's not quite true. In AD&D and BD&D, fighters were feudal lords.

At least that was the narrative built into the mechanics as they leveled up. Other classes of the era did get followers, but not to the size and extent of the fighter who amassed an army. 3e marked a departure from that assumption, and that departure continued in 4e, and now in 5e. Nothing wrong with that – many modern players don't want to play feudal lords – but removing that bit of identity left a vacuum.

3e tried to fill that vacuum with a huge assortment of prestige classes & feats.

Nod. The 3e fighter class design was simple, elegant, and flexible, you could build to almost any non-supernatural character concept with it. The rest of the system was just too broken for any but a few of those 'builds' to be viable.

4e tried to partly filled that vacuum by making all fighters Those Who Defend Others.

Really, 4e expanded the fighter to the 'Martial' Source, making the same mistake every other edition has, and probably will - breaking up non-supernatural abilities and walling them off in classes & feats, in chunks too limited to compete with the breadth of options available to casters. The 'fighter' class name went to the Defender (traditional Tank, but with actual mechanical support) fraction of that, the Ranger name to the archer/twf DPR-king (Striker) that the fighter had covered so well back in 2e (and does again in 5e), and the new Warlord name to the 'lord' or party-leader/anchor archetype that 1e name level and other editions' fluff implied but never remotely delivered on.

5e tries to partly fill that vacuum with backgrounds.

Backgrounds are available to fill vacuums left by (sub)class, I suppose: every character gets one, but if their class is lacking, the background can loom larger than for another character, even one with that same background. A Champion Fighter with the Noble background in an Intrigue-heavy campaign, for instance, will constantly be calling on that Background, while people may forget that the Lore Bard in the same campaign is also Nobility.

Back when I read the AD&D2e PHB as a boy, I remember reading about figures from literature, history, and myth that the fighter class was inspired by: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad.

Of those, Perseus really fit the D&D fighter. He was given a bunch of magic items and a plan to murder a horrible monster, which he pulled off neatly, then used that monster's power to destroy another, and assumed a position of political power for which he was wholly un-qualified. Sinbad could have been a Rogue, or a 3.0 Aristocrat (heck, that's what he was, a privileged son of a wealthy family). Sir Gawain would be another example that D&D fighter covers OK, among the mightiest nights, and not distinguished by much else.

El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius.

Many of these men (and yeah they were all men sadly)

I suppose they could've thrown in a Boadicea or Hippolyta for good measure.

were very charismatic, they were renowned, and people followed them. Many were also masterful tacticians.

And the D&D "Fighter" class has consistently sucked out loud when it comes to modeling such things.

The problem I see with the 'The Fighter Fights' trope or the Fighter is best* at fighting (with weapons, and without magic) goal, is that it's treated as if that excludes being particularly good at everything else, even though most other classes can rival the fighter in the broader sense of combat (without weapons, or with magic, or with weapons & magic), while being very good to similarly best* at one or more other pillars or more specific specializations as well.

* 'best' is to be construed in the sense of "you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone else is strictly better" ie 'best' = 'just as good as the next guy'

LapBandit · Jun 23, 2017

The Fighter and the Champion archetype both needed more in my opinion, here are the changes I made at my table:

Additional ASI at 10th.

Additional Fighting Style at 10th and 20th.

New feature Stances at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18, use Bonus Action to enter a Stance.

Indomitable = Legendary Resistance.

Stances

Thousand Cuts - "You never fully swing your weapon, instead choosing to make lightning fast strikes without power (no GWM) behind them. You can make an additional attack when you take the Attack action, your attacks deal 1 + stat mod damage. The extra attack can be your mainhand or offhand weapon."
Titan Hammer - "When you hit with an attack, you can choose to force your target to move 5ft into an unoccupied space if they are one size category larger than you or smaller."
Patient Arms - "You can use your Action and/or Bonus Action as a Reaction if you did not expend them on your turn. You can have no more than 3 Reactions a round with this stance."
Impregnable Fortress - "When you are hit by a melee weapon attack that is not a crit, you can use your Reaction to attempt to parry the blow. Roll an attack with the weapon you are holding, if the attack total is higher than the attack that hit you, you take 1/2 damage. You cannot make Attacks of Opportunity in this stance."
Blind Eye - When you target a creature that last attacked someone other than you, you have advantage on your next attack against it.
Grasping Claw - "When you get to make an Attack of Opportunity you can choose to grapple a target within your reach instead of making a weapon attack. If you do not have a hand free, you can grapple with your weapon however you cannot make an attack with this weapon until your are no longer grappling."

Fighter (Eldritch Knight) - Spellcasting - Can choose any two schools of magic.

Fighter (Champion) - Remarkable Athlete - Starting at 7th level:
• You gain proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws.
• You are proficient in all Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution skill checks.
• Your high jump and long jump increase by your Strength or Proficiency.
• Climbing and Swimming doesn't halve your speed.
• Standing up from prone costs 5 feet of movement instead of half.

Fighter (Champion) - Warrior Supreme - At 10th level, your presence on the battlefield heartens allies an demoralizes enemies, one per short rest you may use one of these shouts:

Rallying - All allies who can hear you gain 1d10 + your fighter level in Temp HP.
Commanding - All allies who can hear you and have a Reaction to use may use it now to make one weapon attack.
Frightening - All enemies who can hear you are Frightened of you until the end of your next turn.
Distracting - All enemies who can hear you give the first attack against them Advantage until the end of your next turn.
Guarding - All allies who can hear you have advantage on the next saving throw they make until the end of your next turn.

steeldragons · Jun 23, 2017

Quickleaf said:
The 5e Fighter works adequately as is, seems pretty popular overall, and consensus is it's relatively balanced (by whatever metric you use). I agree with all of that. Also. I love playing Fighters, but have consistently felt like the promise of the fighter in the fiction never quite played out in the game.

Ok. A case could be made reflecting on how much of that is actual in-print intended "promises" and how much "expectations/read into." But that might be a different conversation, so we'll leave that be for the time being.

Quickleaf said:
I'm asserting that "The Fighter Fights" design theory is fundamentally flawed because it neglects a whole other dimension to the Fighter class that has been excised from D&D without replacing it with something substantive. I believe it's possible to challenge "The Fighter Fights" and add to the Fighter's design without demolishing what's come before.

Ok. Why does "The FIghter Fights" need to be challenged in order to add design elements to it?

Quickleaf said:
Using the Rules Cyclopedia (BD&D) as an example, I respectfully disagree, sir!

See @Sacrosanct 's response to this. When you said Basic (or "BD&D") the Rules Cyclopedia was not what I was [mentally] referencing. I've never seen/read it, but it undoubtedly had some editing, cleaned up and/or expanded fluff writing, and at least a few rules tweaks/expansions to the original material. I also do not consider/default thinking to "2e" when mentioning "AD&D." As significantly more similar it is to 1e as opposed to/compared with 3e, only heightened by the company's change of hands betwixt 2-to-3e, 2e is still a significantly "different" edition to THE [original] A-D&D.

But, again, we can leave that for now. Your quotes and comments have been most clear and clarifying.

Quickleaf said:
-snip a bunch o' quotes n' stuff to get tot he fun meaty questions stuff-

That's the wrong question. Everyone in D&D fights. Heck, a rogue even fights with just weapons...they just do it from behind.

I've heard that about rogues...Note to self: I need to get some more rogues in my life.

Quickleaf said:
What differentiates warrior traditions, in my understanding, is (a) cause, and (b) technique.

Uhmmmm...Yeah, ok. There's probably other stuff. But those are good from a mechanics design starting point.

Quickleaf said:
The better questions to ask are:

Why does a fighter fight harder?

For example, you might say: "Well, your cause - saving peasants or gold & glory - is up to you to decide, just like everyone else..." So there's no substantive difference. At least in BD&D at 9th level you got to choose who/what you were fighting for and that had some effect on your character's abilities & role in the world.

You are correct. That is exactly my answer. The "cause" for your PC to do ANYthing is up to the player...it is the same regardless of class. Especially the "big 4/building block" classes upon and from which all other classes flow. Causes can become more built-in and narrower/specific the further from those classes you get.

Making a "cause" intrinsic class fluff is what gets you to Paladins, Monks, and Rangers...maybe barbarians...druids and warlocks (though clearly not branching from the Fighter), too.

But, ok. So you would like to build "prestige class" style player options into the class at a higher level? I don't think 5e would really approve/work that way. Also, then, as you noted in your example, the option to not be beholden to some liege or temple is then stripped from the player.

So, I'm gonna veer toward the "I don't really see cause as a legitimate place to insert broadening mechanical oomph into the Fighter" side.

Quickleaf said:
How does a fighter fight better?

Right then, so we've pretty much covered this.
1. They fight better with higher HD, Second Wind, and Indomitable keeping them on their feet longer and being able to "take a hit" and keep fighting.
2. Fighting Styles & Extra Attacks see to it they hit more frequently, more reliably, and/or result in dealing more damage than the average bear.
3. Action Surge also gets them a little extra...well, "action" as well which, while not having to be additional attacks, I suspect often are. Or stuff like moving to/taking on a different opponent when their first goes down. Also helping them "fight better."

Quickleaf said:
[*]And are those answers substantively different from other classes in D&D?

Well, not entirely, no. As we've both, now, noted:
1. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks...even Valor Bards!...all get "Extra Attacks." Which really kind screws the Fighter's pooch as far as that being a "Fighter" thing.
2. Paladins and Rangers get Fighting Styles. Again, making them not a "Fighter" thing, but clearly a more broad "warrior-types" thing.
3. Several classes have "recharging" mechanics which, while not being "Second Wind" can serve to keep them fighting/in the field beyond their initial limits.
4. Cunning Action is, basically, though more narrowly, the Fighter's "Action Surge" for Thieves: get an extra action in on your turn. I presume there might be another class or two with features that permit additional actions, though perhaps not as open/undefined as the Fighter's.

So, basically, no none of that is substantially different than other classes. The Fighter class, by design, is differentiated through their subclasses and the features the receive therein. Again, just as much as any other class.

I, personally, would probably have spent more time than it seems they did on those "other two pillars of adventure" we hear a lot of lip service about, but many if not most classes don't really seem to have any kind of usefulness in at least one pillar each.

I, personally, would have made "Remarkable Athlete" (exploration useful) and something akin to my "Veteran's Camaraderie" (interaction useful) part of the base class.

Beyond that, as least as far as I can tell (and don't mind) in 5e, it's up to the subclasses to flesh out...and/or play up one or two pillars beyond the others, rely on different secondary abilities (is there a Dex-fighter in there? Is there a Smart/Int-Fighter in there?), and generally inject specific fluff/story pieces.

Quickleaf said:
IIRC at least in BD&D the fighter had some maneuvers only it got access to (possibly the dwarf did too).

SET THAT SPEAR, BABY! lol. Yup. IIRC, it was Fighters, Dwarves, I think Halflings too (at least in the original). Can't recall if Elves could...maybe not since they had their magic. Then there were a few more when you got to Companion level and beyond. Wrestling/grappling and such. I feel like there were some others.

Quickleaf said:
I'm not saying I want to go back to BD&D and its assumptions. I'm illustrating that BD&D was addressing the right questions. What I'd like to see is a modern fighter class designed with those 3 questions in mind.

..."What's your Cause?," "How you Fight Better?," and "Is it suitably Different than Other Classes?" Those 3 questions?

Quickleaf said:
I'd be curious to know your thoughts on those 3 questions. Are they the right questions to ask? And, if so, how would you answer them for the PHB fighter?

They are perfectly fine questions to ask if you wish to get to the answers you are looking for. lol.

See above for how I answer them.

Quickleaf said:
That's a good example of branching out the fighter's design in a way that supports a broader conception of what it means to be a fighter, without undermining the flexibility of the class or its existing features.

Alright. So, we are clear then...base fighter class needs at least one exploration feature, one interactions feature.

I might suggest, whether it is a base or sub class thing I'm not sure, but looking to the ranger's expertise...what if Fighters (and fighters alone) were given some kind of "Dungeoneer/Explorer" feature that gave them advantages to exploratory things during adventures?

Some kind of innate leadership quality definitely strikes me as a sub-class thing.

In other words, leave it to the subclasses for the players to decide what they want their place in the world to be and become. Make a subclass that can ascend to a political/feudal spot, if they so choose. But I don't see how you can make that a base class feature/line/built-in flavor for the Fighter...not without ticking off a lot of people.

steeldragons · Jun 23, 2017

As I recall, we also spoke some time ago about a "Hero of Renown/Legend/Destined for Greatness" kinda guy subclass that I think we both took swings at.

Other fighter subclasses I threw together included fairly specific stories, "The Warrior Woman," "The Dwarven Defender," "The Dungeoneer."

But for the kind of thing we're talking about here, I don't know if any of those really pass muster as a legitimate archetype deserving of a "subclass."

steeldragons · Jun 23, 2017

Further thinking out loud... for a specific "exploration pillar" feature...

Seems to me, if the Ranger's get "Natural Explorer" for all kinds of bonus and skills stuff in wilderness settings, it would be appropriate for Fighter's -if you want to inject a story element as builders, and/or conquerors, and/or defenders of nations- to devise a "mirror" feature to that for Fighter's in "Settled" [not necessarily "urban"] areas/settings.

Give them some kind of bonus for finding/gathering information, evaluating a settlements defenses and/or defensive capabilities, local terrain or features they could take advantage of, sussing out a particular community's persons of import, style of government, military/policing practices (who's watching you and who are they likely to be reporting to?), general economics (what seems to be the relevant/thriving industries? what comes in and goes out? and who seems to be "in charge" when it comes to those kinds of things?), etc... General "Making friends and influencing people..." kind of stuff. Gives them an exploratory role, a potential strategic edge, and an interaction feature all in one go. Some kind of Lore and Perception/Insight bonuses make sense. Maybe even Investigation?

Edit to add: However, any/all of this seems to take the options for just playing a "big dumb fighter" with 18 Str. and 5 Int. off the table.

Tony Vargas · Jun 23, 2017

steeldragons said:
Edit to add: However, any/all of this seems to take the options for just playing a "big dumb fighter" with 18 Str. and 5 Int. off the table.

Going with standard array takes that off the table, anyway.

Quickleaf said:
I want to state my premise:

The 5e Fighter works adequately as is, seems pretty popular overall, and consensus is it's relatively balanced (by whatever metric you use). I agree with all of that.

I agree with one of those. We have a thread going about warrior/caster imbalance, and this one is about making the fighter /better/, so IDK about that consensus. the fighter has always been decidedly popular, even when it was Tier 5 and the subject of constant Fighter SUX threads, because, IMHO, of the heroic archetypes that it maps to, rather than it's effectiveness or mechanics.
But, for it's primary mandates - 'best* at fighting,' 'simple,' and 'evoke the classic game,' the fighter is certainly at least adequate.

Also. I love playing Fighters, but have consistently felt like the promise of the fighter in the fiction never quite played out in the game.

I didn't care for playing fighters back in the day for that reason. 3.0 and 4e helped, sorta.

I'm asserting that "The Fighter Fights" design theory is fundamentally flawed because it neglects a whole other dimension to the Fighter class that has been excised from D&D without replacing it with something substantive. I believe it's possible to challenge "The Fighter Fights" and add to the Fighter's design without demolishing what's come before.

I think "The Fighter Fights" is used more narrowly than it need be. 'Fights' is not only taken as combat-only, but as combat, with weapons, and without magic.

But, in English, at least, 'Fight' has broader meanings, not to mention metaphorical ones and connotations.

Right now, the Fighter 'Fights' in the sense of Beats You Repeatedly with a Stick, and in the sense of high STR & CON (and proficiency in those saves) and high (but not highest, tied with the pally for 2nd-highest, in fact) HD. He cannot, though, 'fight city hall,' or 'fight' a Mindflayer's mental domination, or any other metaphorical fighting or crusading. Not unless you count hitting city hall with a stick.

However, I'd further suggest that because other classes have multiple vectors of baked-in identity, that the loss of strongholds & followers as part of the game affected the Fighter to a much greater degree.

Fair enough. I'd note that while the fighter got to become a fuedal 'Lord' in some eds, he didn't really get abilities to back it up - mainly for want of the system modeling such abilities, at all, but still...

The better questions to ask are:

Why does a fighter fight harder?

How does a fighter fight better?

And are those answers substantively different from other classes in D&D?

The answer to the last question is, for the EK, "he doesn't, he uses magic like veryone else."

However, I think those first two question map neatly to the other two PH sub-classes, or rather, can be, if we /really/ stretch a point:

The Champion fights harder, because (based solely on the name) he's championing something (a person, class of persons, cause, belief, or even just his personal honor & glory).

The BM fights better, because he uses superior techniques that others don't have the training/talent/dedication to master.

I think steeldragons idea of a social/'settled'-exploration advantage for the fighter makes a lot of sense in this context. Fighting is not like wielding magic, it's a natural skill, so mastery of it can well bring respect without the fear/superstition that might come with wielding magical power, likewise, dedication and courage.

...of course, some fighters could just be big bullies, in which case the tenor of the bonus changes.