D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[ArchfiendBobbie]

The only statement about the design of fighter made by Mike Mearls I known of talks about how its subclasses fail to tell a story.

It has nothing to do with the class power levels.

He was just trying to say that the class felt too generic, and that was something he regreted.

That is also the reason all the UA subclasses released for the fighter so far tried to have a specific theme. I would rather play a Monster Hunter or Scout than a battlemaster, even knowing that from a pure combat point of view, the battlemaster is stronger.

If you're talking about other statement I don't know of, ignore my post.

Basically, the same thing as the "fighters are boring" complaint I made back on Page 3.

 

[Quickleaf]

For anyone who missed the TomeShow 2015 GenCon interview with Mike Mearls – who is being quoted and misquoted in this thread – here's the relevant transcript I just made. I tried to maintain some of Mike's upbeat and joking nature, as well as his inflections. It's pretty clear he's talking about identity / implied story / character.

[SECTION]GenCon 2015 TomeShow
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/gencon-2015-mike-mearls-open-question-discussion-hour/

25:23 – 28:50

Interviewer: What would you change? And what is your opinion on using errata?

Mike: We are not going to be doing errata for small things, only major errors.

The one class that I realize irritates the heck out of me… and it’s a popular class, like when you talk about changing this, you’re like nervous because people like it and when you talk about changing it that’s dangerous. The one thing I really don’t like, I don’t like is the fighter. Because every other character class when you make that subclass choice… If you’re playing a cleric, OK, you can be a cleric of the God of War, or of the God of Life. Oh, I can picture who that is in my mind, right? That’s a character. If you’re playing a rogue, you can be an Assassin or you can be a Thief, right? OK, I get who that is.

But when you get to the fighter, you can be a Champion or a Battle Master. And I don’t think anyone knows what that is. What is a Champion? Is it that guy walking around with a belt? What’s the Battle Master? I used to play a lot of Battletech, so I think it’s an 85 ton mech with lots of weapons. *laughing* And so that to me was the biggest missed opportunity, cause when you think fighter, you think what kind of fighter do you want to play? Do you want to play a knight, a gladiator, a brawler, a berserker?

We totally wiffed…One of the big things of class design… *joking side talk* One of the big principles of 5th edition design was working with nouns and verbs. Right? You can be this thing – it’s a noun that has resonance. It’s not like: You can be a…Champion. Champion is a great example. It’s empty calories. What is a Champion? Could a paladin be a Champion? Could a ranger be a Champion? That might actually make sense. But if you say Gladiator – oh, that’s a fighter. Gladiators kick ass, a whole bunch of weapons, and trickery, and all that stuff. A Knight. Well, a Knight could be a paladin, but then you get into the lore of the game, oh, Knights don’t use divine spells, they swear fealty to the crown – that’s a fighter.

And so, the nouns we tried to use to describe the character types we wanted to be resonant and interesting… And the fighters completely whiffed, they’re just so… We were so caught up: We need a simple fighter, we need a complex fighter, oh my god, how will we handle this? We got so down that mechanical rabbit hole, we ended up with literally these flavorless names. If I could go back, and shake myself 18 months in the past, “Just no, don’t do it!” I’d completely change how we approached the fighter.[/SECTION]

 

[Warpiglet]

For anyone who missed the TomeShow 2015 GenCon interview with Mike Mearls – who is being quoted and misquoted in this thread – here's the relevant transcript I just made. I tried to maintain some of Mike's upbeat and joking nature, as well as his inflections. It's pretty clear he's talking about identity / implied story / character.

[SECTION]GenCon 2015 TomeShow
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/gencon-2015-mike-mearls-open-question-discussion-hour/

25:23 – 28:50

Interviewer: What would you change? And what is your opinion on using errata?

Mike: We are not going to be doing errata for small things, only major errors.

The one class that I realize irritates the heck out of me… and it’s a popular class, like when you talk about changing this, you’re like nervous because people like it and when you talk about changing it that’s dangerous. The one thing I really don’t like, I don’t like is the fighter. Because every other character class when you make that subclass choice… If you’re playing a cleric, OK, you can be a cleric of the God of War, or of the God of Life. Oh, I can picture who that is in my mind, right? That’s a character. If you’re playing a rogue, you can be an Assassin or you can be a Thief, right? OK, I get who that is.

But when you get to the fighter, you can be a Champion or a Battle Master. And I don’t think anyone knows what that is. What is a Champion? Is it that guy walking around with a belt? What’s the Battle Master? I used to play a lot of Battletech, so I think it’s an 85 ton mech with lots of weapons. *laughing* And so that to me was the biggest missed opportunity, cause when you think fighter, you think what kind of fighter do you want to play? Do you want to play a knight, a gladiator, a brawler, a berserker?

We totally wiffed…One of the big things of class design… *joking side talk* One of the big principles of 5th edition design was working with nouns and verbs. Right? You can be this thing – it’s a noun that has resonance. It’s not like: You can be a…Champion. Champion is a great example. It’s empty calories. What is a Champion? Could a paladin be a Champion? Could a ranger be a Champion? That might actually make sense. But if you say Gladiator – oh, that’s a fighter. Gladiators kick ass, a whole bunch of weapons, and trickery, and all that stuff. A Knight. Well, a Knight could be a paladin, but then you get into the lore of the game, oh, Knights don’t use divine spells, they swear fealty to the crown – that’s a fighter.

And so, the nouns we tried to use to describe the character types we wanted to be resonant and interesting… And the fighters completely whiffed, they’re just so… We were so caught up: We need a simple fighter, we need a complex fighter, oh my god, how will we handle this? We got so down that mechanical rabbit hole, we ended up with literally these flavorless names. If I could go back, and shake myself 18 months in the past, “Just no, don’t do it!” I’d completely change how we approached the fighter.[/SECTION]

Indeed. If only we had a variant entertainer background for a gladiator. Or mounted combat and other feats for a knight...if only we gave labels the players could never come up with!

 

[Quickleaf]

Indeed. If only we had a variant entertainer background for a gladiator. Or mounted combat and other feats for a knight...if only we gave labels the players could never come up with!

Hah, so I take it you don't enjoy Mike Mearls' work as a game designer?

 

[Quickleaf]

I think, reading between the lines – especially that bit about where Mike Mearls mentions "noun and verb", is that he's implying a subclass should be able to fit easily into a format of:

A [subclass] [verb].

For example:

A Thief breaks in and steals things.

An Evoker masters evocation magic to blow things up.

A Hunter tracks down his or her favored prey.

A Cleric of Life heals the wounded and tends the sick.

But then the problem comes with the Fighter subclasses...

A Champion... champions a cause? No... leads an army? No...

A Battle Master... um... fights really well? No, wait, that's the fighter...

 

[Gladius Legis]

Action surge does second wind not so much.

Second Wind scales pretty well for a short-rest recharge bonus-action heal. Lv. 10 Fighter heals 15.5, compared to a Healing Word upcast with 5th-level slot healing 17.5. Not too far behind there.

 

[Zardnaar]

Second Wind scales pretty well for a short-rest recharge bonus-action heal. Lv. 10 Fighter heals 15.5, compared to a Healing Word upcast with 5th-level slot healing 17.5. Not too far behind there.

In a vacumn yes but look at a CR5 hill giant or gladiator let alone a cr 10 critter. Thats why it doesn't scale well.

 

[Gladius Legis]

If the most recent Fighter UA was an attempt to give subclasses that "tell a story," it failed miserably. I'd much rather play a Battle Master with appropriate maneuvers and Student of War pick, fluff that it is, than those abominations that were the Knight, Samurai and Sharpshooter. Hell, the Knight was a dishonest attempt to repackage a DMG optional rule (marking) available to everyone already into a Fighter subclass!

 

[Gladius Legis]

In a vacumn yes but look at a CR5 hill giant or gladiator let alone a cr 10 critter. Thats why it doesn't scale well.

That's the thing, though. Bonus-action heals aren't meant to be mighty healing spells/abilities. They're basically for emergencies. If you want stronger healing, you use spells that take some time like Prayer of Healing or Aura of Vitality.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's the thing, though. Bonus-action heals aren't meant to be mighty healing spells/abilities. They're basically for emergencies. If you want stronger healing, you use spells that take some time like Prayer of Healing or Aura of Vitality.

Spells that heal what madness is this?