D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

dco · May 3, 2017

Zardnaar said:
Its because you have read the PHB though. I think its more for new players or in 4E and 3E with some of the PrCs and class names were WTF.

Whats a seeker, warden, Dragon Disciple for the uninitiated for example? A fighter, assassin, wizard means something even if you have never played D&D before. What is a Duskblade?

Someone has to read the PHB if they want to play the game, at least the DM, the one who should give advice to the players who don't know how to fulfil their character concept.
If the problem is the name of the class and what it evokes to the player's imagination who cares, people think differently, a lot of people will not know the differences between a warlock, sorcerer, wizard, what the hell is an arcane trickster or eldritch knight, will envision clerics as catholic priests, etc.
I'm also astounded people think those things give identity or personality to a class, yes, a thief can steal things, as any other class, wizars cats spells, as most classes...

Arnwolf666 · May 3, 2017

Ahhh, but your post isn't about obscure weapons. You're post is about screwing people that take feats you don't like. Just don't allow the feats or be up front with them that you don't get a magic greatsword because you took GWM, now if you be a good little boy and don't take that feat then I will let you have a magic greatsword (or battle axe).

Arnwolf666 · May 3, 2017

Saelorn said:
Wow, you'd intentionally pander to your players and sacrifice the integrity of the setting for everyone by blatantly including obscure magic weapons that they happened to specialize in? I'd say you are being a bad DM and not play in your game. There are are lots of things I don't like about 5E, but I don't take it out on my players.

Ahhh, but your post isn't about obscure weapons. You're post is about screwing people that take feats you don't like. Just don't allow the feats or be up front with them that you don't get a magic greatsword because you took GWM, now if you be a good little boy and don't take that feat then I will let you have a magic greatsword (or battle axe). And if you write you are own adventure and build your own encounters build them for the players. And there is no difference in a game of giving someone a +1 guisarme voulge than a +1 Greatsword in 2E. Even in 5E I'm not going to screw a player for taking a feat. Build better encounters for your players if you write your own. That should be easy if you know how to write your own adventures.

Warmaster Horus · May 3, 2017

So I keep hearing how generic the subclasses of fighter are and non-optimal to the fighting craft they appear to be. But it's really just a matter of what you do with your character that defines them. I personally don't want a ton of baked-in stuff that may not fit the vision of MY fighter. I read a comment in the recent Unearthed Arcana thread about the Favored Soul and how the poster didn't like that the Cure Wounds spell was a mandatory addition as it didn't fit their concept of the archetype. In the end fighters are what the players put into them using the options they're presented and elements not necessarily in the class descriptor.

Yeah, the paladin is awesome (my highest level PC started as a Paladin) but I started seeing single-classed fighters after 11th level and came to appreciate what they were bringing to the show. So I don't think the fighter is as weak as all that has been intimated. But I wouldn't turn away new options in the future that provided something appealing to those who want it.

Aldarc · May 3, 2017

Warmaster Horus said:
In the end fighters are what the players put into them using the options they're presented and elements not necessarily in the class descriptor.

Which goes back to my "issue" with fighters: that this above idea seemingly only applies to fighters but not, in general, to other classes.

Chaosmancer · May 3, 2017

Zardnaar said:
Its because you have read the PHB though. I think its more for new players or in 4E and 3E with some of the PrCs and class names were WTF.

Whats a seeker, warden, Dragon Disciple for the uninitiated for example? A fighter, assassin, wizard means something even if you have never played D&D before. What is a Duskblade?

A person who hasn't been read up on DnD isn't going to know what a Paladin is, let alone what an Oath of Ancients is. You tell them about a Great Old Ones Warlock and most people on the street will have no idea what you are talking about. They'd have no idea what a Druid is, or why they are circles instead of squares.

If we assume someone with zero DnD knowledge, whose only fantasy experience is Harry Potter and King Arthur, a lot of this is going to make no sense to them.

However, "Fighter" evokes a certain image. People know what a "Champion" is, they are the best. Battlemaster, the name says it all Master of Battle. Could the names have been less generic, sure, but that doesn't mean they don't do the job they are meant to do.

Warmaster Horus · May 3, 2017

Chaosmancer said:
...Battlemaster, the name says it all Master of Battle. Could the names have been less generic, sure, but that doesn't mean they don't do the job they are meant to do.

You mean they don't think of this?

man-at-arms-he-man-and-she-ra-a-christmas-special-80.5.jpg

Man-At-Arms, Heroic Master of Weapons?

Corwin · May 3, 2017

Zardnaar said:
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.

You're telling others not to think in a vacuum? Awesome! BTW, what's the paladin doing for the round, in the face of that hill giant, other than laying hands upon himself? And I'm sure that hill giant is going to take a round off as well, right? Gentlemen's agreement?

Sacrosanct · May 3, 2017

Warmaster Horus said:
So I keep hearing how generic the subclasses of fighter are and non-optimal to the fighting craft they appear to be. But it's really just a matter of what you do with your character that defines them. I personally don't want a ton of baked-in stuff that may not fit the vision of MY fighter. I read a comment in the recent Unearthed Arcana thread about the Favored Soul and how the poster didn't like that the Cure Wounds spell was a mandatory addition as it didn't fit their concept of the archetype. In the end fighters are what the players put into them using the options they're presented and elements not necessarily in the class descriptor.

Yeah, the paladin is awesome (my highest level PC started as a Paladin) but I started seeing single-classed fighters after 11th level and came to appreciate what they were bringing to the show. So I don't think the fighter is as weak as all that has been intimated. But I wouldn't turn away new options in the future that provided something appealing to those who want it.

This is pretty much my view as well. The fighter/warrior archetype is probably the most broad in fantasy literature and media. Therefore, the fighter class has to have an option that is more generic with additional features that add customization in order to emulate all of these archetypes as much as possible. By giving two additional feats, WoTC did a great job doing this. I have made stealthy fighters, front line defenders, and quasi-paladins all without giving up anything (by using feats that all the other classes got). To me, that is successful design. The more hard baked abilities you put in a class, the less customization you have.

Aldarc said:
Which goes back to my "issue" with fighters: that this above idea seemingly only applies to fighters but not, in general, to other classes.

It does. Every other class still gets backgrounds and feats. The fighter just gets more feats, the reason being what I just described above.

Warmaster Horus · May 3, 2017

Zardnaar said:
This. Also I got sick of catering to powergamers in 3E.

If you pick a "powerful" option you might get a magic weapon but don't expect it.

I'm actually finding my players and even new players want a bit more realism and grittyness in the game. They actually want me to punish them for bad life choices as a few of them have played in groups where they have Barbarians running around with +2 and +3 great weapons where the exhaustion rules are conveniently over looked and the games get out of hand fast as the DMs pander to them (mostly inexperienced ones).

One can think of plenty of legendary swords from myth and legends or D&D. Can't think of to many famous Polearms or handcrossbows.

I like to reward my players as they go on to become heroes. Not a monty-haul kind of freebie, but certainly put people, items or accolades that would interest their characters in reach for them to achieve.

BTW, there's probably a reason you only hear about legendary swords in myth & legend. The sword was a weapon of the nobility, easily used from horseback and expensive (all metal). Just like the rich and famous have cachet today, so then have they had it throughout history. Polearms (other than the lance) were the weapon of the common soldiery and militia, often adapted from agricultural implements. Not exactly sexy but commonly available.

D&D differs in that a great number of adventurers do not come from nobility or even the moneyed classes. Many would of grown up learning the spear or other common defensive implements. So 'sword centricism' (yes, I'm making an academic-styled social trend perjorative) should be less an issue in a D&D world than in our world.

D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

dco

Guest

Arnwolf666

Adventurer

Arnwolf666

Adventurer

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

Aldarc

Legend

Chaosmancer

Legend

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

Corwin

Explorer

Sacrosanct

Legend

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

Similar Threads