D&D (2024) 4/26 Playtest: The Fighter

[Stalker0]

Immunity to damage on a miss is pretty simple.

I think you would back this into some kind of evasion ability:

Agile Evasion: You don't take damage from damage on a miss or half damage when you pass a save effects. (with clearner language).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay, look. It seems like we're not going to come to an agreement in this matter within the next 100 pages of this thread, so instead, can we agree that in terms of player experience, a character using a fighter will be more versatile, harder to kill, and deal more damage than if they made a 5e fighter?

Sure, but I'm still going to push for real changes that might actually start to put a dent in the disparity between casters and martials.

 

[Asisreo]

Sure, but I'm still going to push for real changes that might actually start to put a dent in the disparity between casters and martials.

Well, if you're going to do that, are you going to allow feats to be partially the means with which that is fulfilled. Because there are still feats that would be difficult for casters to just grab like those that require a specific class or proficiency.

For example, it would usually take a level dip and an extra feat for a caster to get a feat that requires heavy armor.

And epic boons like Epic Boon of Irrestible Offense or Energy Resistance are impossible for a caster to obtain without a DM.

 

[Azzy]

Well, if you're going to do that, are you going to allow feats to be partially the means with which that is fulfilled. Because there are still feats that would be difficult for casters to just grab like those that require a specific class or proficiency.

I can't speak for Chaosmancer, but I'd be more open to Feats as a solution if there were actually more Feats (so that Fighters aren't all picking the same Feats), Fighter-Only Feats (because, like other classes, Fighters should have abilities unique to them), and higher level (8th-level and above) level-gated Feats (that are suitably legendary, relevant, and powered to higher-tier Fighters, and so you're not just picking the also-ran Feats that you didn't want earlier and also). Failing that, no.

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah at my table there will only be one “legal” version of each thing. Might not always be the new version, depends on how things shake out, but it’s one or the other.

Like all my content rules, an exception is possible for a good reason, but that’s the general rule, bc why wouldn’t it be?

If one is doing table specific rules Charge and Power Attack (or bonus action attack) may become an across the board standard house rule option (for those trying to bridge the gap) .

I can't speak for Chaosmancer, but I'd be more open to Feats as a solution if there were actually more Feats (so that Fighters aren't all picking the same Feats), Fighter-Only Feats (because, like other classes, Fighters should have abilities unique to them), and higher level (8th-level and above) level-gated Feats (that are suitably legendary, relevant, and powered to higher-tier Fighters, and so you're not just picking the also-ran Feats that you didn't want earlier and also). Failing that, no.

Feats or Maneuvers... ie class features... every spell is another feature for the spell caster. It is why martial types feel anemic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, if you're going to do that, are you going to allow feats to be partially the means with which that is fulfilled. Because there are still feats that would be difficult for casters to just grab like those that require a specific class or proficiency.

For example, it would usually take a level dip and an extra feat for a caster to get a feat that requires heavy armor.

And epic boons like Epic Boon of Irrestible Offense or Energy Resistance are impossible for a caster to obtain without a DM.

If there were fats capable of balancing that out, sure. But somehow I don't think there is a feat that offers the control options of Hypnotic Pattern or Wall of Force.

I don't think Heavy Armor on a wizard is really something most of them care about for example, while something like Spell snipers 1) Increases a stat they care about, 2) Keeps them at a superior range 3) Allows them to ignore cover which can hinder ranged attacks 4) Take no penalties from casting in melee. Considering two 1st level spells and a decent dex score gives any Wizard an AC of 20 on demand, I think the increased spellcasting is generally more valuable.

Or, you point to the ability to get the Epic Boon of Energy Resistance.... which Mages can get. It is actually WARRIORS who can't get that one. So, compare resistance to two damage types and a reaction damage when taking that damage to... ignoring weapon resistances (something mages do already) and dealing extra damage on that 5% chance of a crit. Or more accurately, why don't we compare it to at-will teleportation (Boon of Dimensional Travel), or at-will invisibility and resistance to almost all types of damage (Boon of the Night Spirit)?

It may be entirely possible to go an entire battle without once activating the epic boon of irresistible offense, but you are certainly going to notice the spellcaster who can teleport at-will. So, if feats are going to allow martials to close the gap... Well, there is a lot of progress to be made on that front.

 

[Asisreo]

I can't speak for Chaosmancer, but I'd be more open to Feats as a solution if there were actually more Feats (so that Fighters aren't all picking the same Feats), Fighter-Only Feats (because, like other classes, Fighters should have abilities unique to them), and higher level (8th-level and above) level-gated Feats (that are suitably legendary, relevant, and powered to higher-tier Fighters, and so you're not just picking the also-ran Feats that you didn't want earlier and also). Failing that, no.

If there were fats capable of balancing that out, sure. But somehow I don't think there is a feat that offers the control options of Hypnotic Pattern or Wall of Force.

I don't think Heavy Armor on a wizard is really something most of them care about for example, while something like Spell snipers 1) Increases a stat they care about, 2) Keeps them at a superior range 3) Allows them to ignore cover which can hinder ranged attacks 4) Take no penalties from casting in melee. Considering two 1st level spells and a decent dex score gives any Wizard an AC of 20 on demand, I think the increased spellcasting is generally more valuable.

Or, you point to the ability to get the Epic Boon of Energy Resistance.... which Mages can get. It is actually WARRIORS who can't get that one. So, compare resistance to two damage types and a reaction damage when taking that damage to... ignoring weapon resistances (something mages do already) and dealing extra damage on that 5% chance of a crit. Or more accurately, why don't we compare it to at-will teleportation (Boon of Dimensional Travel), or at-will invisibility and resistance to almost all types of damage (Boon of the Night Spirit)?

It may be entirely possible to go an entire battle without once activating the epic boon of irresistible offense, but you are certainly going to notice the spellcaster who can teleport at-will. So, if feats are going to allow martials to close the gap... Well, there is a lot of progress to be made on that front.

I'm not opposed to better feats either. I would hope, then, that we can push WoTC to add more and impressive feats to the game that lets martials do more powerful stuff if they want.

I don't want all martial compatible feats to be exclusive to martials, but I do want the majority of them to be.

 

[Maxperson]

If there were fats capable of balancing that out, sure. But somehow I don't think there is a feat that offers the control options of Hypnotic Pattern or Wall of Force.

There are two issues with this statement. First, I don't see why a fighter needs the same control options as a caster. So long as they are on par with a caster, they can excel in areas the caster doesn't the caster can excel in areas the fighter doesn't. Second, since feats are essentially selectable class abilities, if you can't make a feat that offers that kind of control, you can't make a class ability that gives that kind of control.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are two issues with this statement. First, I don't see why a fighter needs the same control options as a caster. So long as they are on par with a caster, they can excel in areas the caster doesn't the caster can excel in areas the fighter doesn't.

If you don't see how having similar options is getting on par, then I don't have any clue how to begin explaining it to you.

As for areas the caster can't excel in that the fighter does, other than single target DPR casters writ large are better at exploration, healing, control, social, area DPR, and very comparable in terms of durability/survivability. Since that is... most of the game, I think it is okay for fighters to do more than single target DPR.

Second, since feats are essentially selectable class abilities, if you can't make a feat that offers that kind of control, you can't make a class ability that gives that kind of control.

I never said you couldn't make a feat that does. Just that they haven't. Don't strawman me.

 

[Maxperson]

If you don't see how having similar options is getting on par, then I don't have any clue how to begin explaining it to you.

If you don't see how you can have different abilities that are roughly equally powerful, then I don't have any clue how to begin explaining THAT to YOU.

As for areas the caster can't excel in that the fighter does, other than single target DPR casters writ large are better at exploration, healing, control, social, area DPR, and very comparable in terms of durability/survivability. Since that is... most of the game, I think it is okay for fighters to do more than single target DPR.

Cool. Now if you'd address what I said. I wasn't talking about as it stands now. I was talking about in the future if they were to say create feats to raise the fighter up.

I never said you couldn't make a feat that does. Just that they haven't. Don't strawman me.

Oohhhh! You didn't understand that they were including the fact that more feats could be created to raise the fighter up when they suggested feats being an option. Got it. That makes more sense now. I thought you understood what was being said. If you had, then you what you typed out would have meant that they couldn't possibly make a feat to make fighters stronger. My bad.