D&D 5E Better Fighter?

[Hillsy7]

Interesting - I always read the Fighter as having slightly more core mechanics than any other class.

There was action surge, more feats, fighting styles, and extra attacks....then, withing the subclasses, there was Crit range, superiority dice, or limited spell casting.....From a core design point of view, this gave the Fighter incredible versatility, often based around how you used your attack action. Feats like shield master, Crossbow expert, pole arm master, and tavern brawler gave you different stuff to do with your bonus action - GWM and SS were trade-off choices - savage and sentinel augmented existing abilities....and so on. All of which were based around what you did with your attack, and changed it in an incredible variety of ways. Fighting styles were dice augmentation, and extra attacks gave you more of what you were good at. Then you chose Eldrich knight to go Gish, Battle Master to perform manoeuvres (similar to 3.5 with disarm, trip, knockback etc, plus a few more), and if you just wanted to roll 1 dice and make it even better, there was the Champion.

To me, the core mechanic of the Fighter was always about what you did with your attack - the fighter fights, so to speak. Where a lot of the other classes focus in on specific "tricks", the Fighter opened that up.

Maybe its the profligacy of feat builds you see on these message boards that make people feel they are a little less special than they actually are, or the fact the feat choices aren't baked into the class in the same way the Warlock Invocations are. I don't know. But personally, the fighter has always felt like the class that you can tweak best to what you want to do, rather than nudging you towards choices.....largely because of the combination of subclass, feats and fighting styles......

 

[Ashkelon]

I like the direction of the changes you are making, but this class still isn't one I would want to play. It might be potent in combat, but it is still quite mundane. It lacks any real decisions to make on a round by round basis. In combat it does little more than swing its weapon repeatedly. Outside of combat, it lacks any real options to contribute dramatically to social or exploration encounters.

At high levels, the fighter is doing the same types of things it was already doing from level 2. It hasn't gained new epic capabilities like many other classes do. The wizard starts off with prestidigitation and burning hands and ends up with meteorswarm and wish. The high level fighter has bigger numbers and that's it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was action surge, more feats, fighting styles, and extra attacks

Extra Attack is all over the place, feats are universal (if they're opted into), fighting styles are shared with other classes. Action Surge and Second Wind are the two obvious ones.

From a core design point of view, this gave the Fighter incredible versatility

Nonsense. The fighter starts out as a hard-coded idiot-specialist in tanky DPR, immediately has to lock in a Style, then a sub-class. Virtually all it's features point at combat. It's the least versatile class in the game.

Ironically, it's still head & shoulders above the AD&D Weapon Specialist fighters in terms of versatility - you can at least swap out the weapon in your hand without losing the only unique mechanic benefit you'll ever have. Conceptually, it's light-years behind the versatility (actually just build customization) of the 3.x fighter with his 11 'small' bonus feats. And while it's not formally locked into the Defender Role (it's functionally a striker, like the Essential Slayer) like the 4e fighter, it's also stuck covering the ground of the 4e Warlord and Ranger, as well...

To me, the core mechanic of the Fighter was always about what you did with your attack - the fighter fights, so to speak. Where a lot of the other classes focus in on specific "tricks", the Fighter opened that up.

Sadly true. Prior to 2e C&T, that was mostly attack. Sure, there were obscure foot-notes on the PH table that you might actually use once in a blue moon to disarm an enemy or dismount a rider, and you certainly might set a spear to receive a charge - and there were even more-obscure DMG alternatives, that were mostly pretty bad, like parrying for a +1 AC. In 3e there were finally a basic range of combat maneuvers - most of them were bad options unless you sank feats into them, but at least they existed. In 4e, briefly, the fighter had a range (though not breadth) of maneuvers available as he leveled comparable to what the casters in the party would have as spell choices. Then it was demoted to the Knight & Slayer. The 5e fighter has fewer basic combat options than the 3.x fighter, and only one sub-class has maneuvers, all of which are fairly basic, and 3rd-level-appropriate.

The 5e fighter is a beatstick, as he levels, he beats you with that stick more often each round. That's about it.

But personally, the fighter has always felt like the class that you can tweak best to what you want to do, rather than nudging you towards choices....

Certainly how it felt in 3.0 - you had 11 bonus feats, on top of the 7 feats everyone got, that defined your fighter (or his 'build' I suppose), that was on top of Full BAB, good FORT saves, and broad weapon & armor proficiencies - and crap for skills, of course, mustn't forget that.

And that was the high-water mark of customization. In 4e you could do lots of different things, by picking the right powers and/or re-skinning them, and be this very solid contributor as a 'defender' but it wasn't the same - it took two more classes (and there really should have been a fourth, a 'controller') to do justice to the fighter archetype.

But 5e, it's forgotten everything that happened after the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

 

[DaedalusX51]

First off apologies if that cam across a bit Brusque - I had half hour to kill in between meetings at work.

No problem. I appreciate the discussion.

First off: Can you really not imagine a situation where someone piling on massive damage as they progress levels wouldn't be having a brilliant time? This is basically one of the reasons Sneak Attack progression has survived multiple iterations - a decent subset of players love grabbing and rolling loads of dice. I mean there's also a decent argument to be made that one of the great draws of the 5e fighter (Champion specific) now compared to 4e certainly, and 3/3.5e tangentially (Having to stack feats to get the one you want) is that it's simple to play and highly powered.

I mean who doesn't love rolling dice and dealing lots of damage? I just think it is more interesting to have to work for it. Sneak Attack is actually the perfect example of what I mean.

Sneak attack is pretty much comparable in damage to a Fighter's attack routine. The Fighter just stands there and dishes it without an option to do something different. The Rogue has to decide every turn how they will manage to get Sneak Attack for the turn.

Now I don't want the Fighter to be a Rogue, but it would be nice if instead of just dealing more damage automatically, you had to make decisions about how you were going to accomplish that.

Personally, I'm with you - I like more options and would more than likely always play a Battlemaster Fighter. However, I know of players, and can easily imagine other types of players, where pure damage output is what gets them stoked - not choice, or options, or anything else. It's running up to the face of whatever it is that's against them, rolling, and wiping out a third of their HP. The point is, whether you intended to or not, you cannot understand why these people find it fun, and therefore it's not fun.

Now I don't want to detract from what others find fun, but I guess my issue is with the way WotC designed the Fighter subclasses. The Battle Master is mechanically similar to a 4E Fighter without gaining higher level powers/maneuvers or forgetting them on use. I wasn't a fan of that implementation and this one bugs me too.

The Champion is on the other end of the spectrum. While they don't have the narrative/mechanical design issues I have with the Battle Master, they do not get to make any round by round choices.

So this leaves me feeling kind of let down in regards to my favorite class.

I was a huge fan of the Knight and Slayer Fighter classes in 4E Essentials. They were a nice balance of round by round decision making using their at-will stances, and their flavor and mechanics matched well.

I was hoping to capture that feel, but using the mechanics that are already in the game.

Eldrich knight comment: "What better way to capitalize on what the Eldritch Knight loves the most" on your post, which is I presume a reference to the Eldrich knight being able to cast cantrips as OAs - and then further compounded to why OAs are why I play a fighter in general. Personally in this case, OAs are pretty low down my reasons to play a fighter (Narrative, extra attacks, feats, fighting styles, and the fact the class doesn't get in the way of the character background, all rate miles above what I do on OAs). Now, if these were specific to me, meh, I can accept I'm my own personal case. Again, however, I know enough people, and can imagine a vast number of people, for who that is also the case.

Oh that explains your reaction! No I didn't mean it that way. I just mean that Eldritch Knights really capitalize on reactions like Shield, Absorb Elements, and War Caster. In addition, the current Fighter enjoys things like the Protection Fighting Style, the Riposte maneuver, the Polearm Master feat, etc. Not that other classes don't enjoy reactions, but I feel that there is a history of Fighters gaining extra reactions. I didn't mean that people pick the class for that reason. I think most people pick classes for the narrative first and foremost. (Or I guess lack thereof for your benefit with the Fighter. Which is pretty much the same thing.)

That's not to say your evaluation of your own mind is incorrect or a wrong way of playing the game - it isn't. But your wording and presentation of why you are doing something is swapping your view of the class, for the truth about the class. That's going to put people who don't share your views in a defensive mindset straight off, and thereby you're not going to get objective feedback. Saying "I'd like to add this to the class because I like to play the game this way" - or "I've struggle to find a Fighter that suits my style of play, I want to play as a Fighter because [X], so here are the changes I'd like to make" - makes no judgement on the way other people play the game

I have a tendency of of saying that it's my way or the highway unless I'm proven wrong. I'm still working on that...

One, that risks cognitive bias a bit - I come from a bit of a writing background and you don't get to say what you wanted to achieve with a scene. You don't get to have a discussion to make them change their mind to see it scene how you wanted to portray it. Especially not before they've even read the scene.

That's not to say dialogue isn't good, but the starting point should be from their reaction, and their reaction is correct and valid regardless of what your reasoning or intention was. That's also not to say you can't dismiss their viewpoint if you want to - it's entirely your prerogative to take onboard whatever feedback you want, or simply only listen to people who share your visions (It's generally accepted that a fantasy/sci-fi author is perfectly entitled to put more emphasis on feedback from sci-fi/fantasy fans and authors when workshopping books - it makes good sense to getting the output you want).

In this instance specifically, I simply meant I felt you should be reading peoples feedback and seeing how they felt this altered the class to see if it lined up with your intention, and then asking them why they thought as they did, to see if it married up with what you wanted to achieve.

I see where you're coming from.

Again - your opinion. I suspect plenty of people view CE and SS, GWM and PAM, and see no problem with balance in general, or Min/Maxing specific. Though granted it's one of the more accepted bugs in the rules......


That's true - but Only if your players take short rests every 2 encounters. Not everyone plays this way. The DMG p.84 states, yes, probably 2-3 encounters per short rest. However, lots of little fights means you'll likely be piling through many more. At which point, having a feature that's only balanced if you play a certain way, isn't really balanced. Also purely from a design intention point of view, if you're getting Action Surge every fight, you're more inclined to use it every fight. If you know there's some calculus going on between how many fights, how many rests, and how many encounters before you really, really, really NEED it for the BBEG - that adds doubt meaning you'll use it less often in case the GM lobs the dragon at you before you get a chance to short rest....

Your explanation further exacerbates my issues with the Fighter. Not only can I no longer have a single choice per encounter, but now I can't have a choice at all (Save it for the BBEG)? Now if that's how you like to play, that's fine, but this isn't fun for me.

I think if I played in a game that didn't hand out a short rest every 2 to 3 encounters I would just not play a Fighter at all. If you are going to design a game around balancing character power around different types of rests, you need to ensure that the characters are getting those rests. Otherwise you are penalizing the players that use classes that require them. However, there is an entire thread about this issue so I will leave it at that.

1) Aura of protection and Diamond Soul ain't an auto-save, there is still a non-zero chance of failure. Advantage only works out on average as +3.5 do a d20 roll. If you are a fighter with Wis 4 against a DC 22 Wis save, realistically you need a crit - now you get an autosave. That's MASSIVE.
2) Diamond Soul and Aura of Protection are integral to the design concepts of the those classes. Indomitable is just a light reflection of the fact of you're used to pushing yourself a bit harder, and being a bit more heroic than your common sword swinger (level 0 fighter) - in other words, not all similar features have to be the same across classes. I mean, you can balance them, but then I'd suggest look at the imbalance of what the Fighter gets that's other classes don't (e.g free feats to take resiliant compared to the cost of Diamond Soul)
3) I think getting it earlier isn't a problem personally, neither is adding in as extra use. Once per short rest would probably be ok balance wise - maybe starting with once per long (level 1), then scaling to once per short rest, and finally regain 2 uses per long, once per short for the third tier. I don't feel that would be too crazy (as as you're going higher level, you're going to get enemies that spam saves more)

I can see how that can be a problem. However I don't see how Diamond Soul and Aura of Protection are integral design concepts of their respective classes while indomitable is not. And if it's not, shouldn't it be?

While that is true - and to be fair I was rushing a tad at that point to complete my thought before the meeting started - it does still mean at level 18, a group of Knights is going to dominate battles in ways many other groups of classes can't - they already have more attacks as a base class, and now they get another 2 if the enemies attack anyone they can move to (presumably triggering OAs themselves which might trigger more Knight features.) I can't tell for sure if that's realistically an issue (I think a lot of people complain about high end powers not really having experienced them in as wide a range of game situations as is ideal), but this does raise a bit of a flag to me compared to other capstone abilities. That's my opinion thought....

I actually never considered that. I could change the feature so that other knights can't overlap benefits.

Thanks for the input.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Sure, whichever one works for you.

I think it's key to having a good player. Can you suspend your disbelief? Can you respect other people's suspension of disbelief, or do you throw a fit? Or do you break the unwritten 'don't be a jerk' rule?

I think it's important for both the players to be willing to suspend belief enough to play within the DM's world and for the DM to make a world that is easy enough for the players to be willing to suspend their belief in. D&D is a collaborative storytelling game and it's important that everyone can be involved and have fun.

(I'm going to assume you aren't passively aggressively calling me a jerk here because I do value your input on these discussions here and in other threads and that would be quite unfortunate.)

IDK about 'best,' but the flavor text of a power was explicitly something the player could customize, if they wanted to (per the section on reading powers - much like being able to describe your character's appearance and gear how you liked, which started, in 3.0), they just couldn't change the mechanics. In that way, you could match the 'narrative' you wanted for your character to whatever power seemed closest to the mechanics you felt best fit that narrative - they only 'didn't match' if you (a) couldn't come up with anything that worked for you and (b) took that power anyway.

OTOH, if you were OK with the given fluff, you left it alone. :shrug:

Oh I don't really have a problem with that design choice, but it is a large change for what was expected out of D&D. In addition, I think they didn't actually go far enough with their design. I think they should have taken an effects first design like the Champions RPG, and made your power source dictate additional things about your abilities. So instead of having a bunch of pregenerated powers you would just create powers and give them your own fluff.

It's really a lot like 5e, that way, just instead of being in the players' hands, in 5e, that flexibility is exclusively in the DM's hands, and, instead of being just the fluff of one character that can be changed at whim, it's everything. ;D

Not really, the 'reading powers' section was never repealed or anything, though they did give martial classes far fewer powers...

... really, the issue of 'dissociated mechanics' - which is what you were dancing around - is not about mechanics nor about dissociation, it's about martial characters getting to do stuff other than just damage every round, and thus having the potential to be as interesting and versatile as casters.

Why that's intollerable isn't worth discussing, but it is, to a large/loud/uncompromising enough segment of the fanbase that 5e didn't go there. FWIW.

I have issues with this part.

I played 4E from the day it came out until the start of the D&D Next playtest. I think there were many great things about it, but I didn't like everything.

I remember the constant edition wars on the Wizards 4E forums and all of the discussions that took place. (And if I remember correctly you were a prolific poster in defense of the core 4E design)

Now I think the argument about disassociative mechanics has merit, but I do not want to get rid of the Fighter's nice things. I am actually looking for the complexity and round by round decision making of a 4E Fighter but with mechanics tied closer to the narrative. I know the 4E Slayer and Knight were considered sub par due to their lack of daily powers, but I think the design just wasn't quite there at the time. I think there is still room to find a balance, but unfortunately 5E still isn't quite there for me.

I want us both to really get what we want in the Fighter class. I don't think our desires are mutually exclusive.

When designing a variant to use at you own table, though, you can totally go there.

MDD's from the playtest had a lot of potential. [MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] has an idea for adding weapon-damage dice with level instead of getting extra attack, and trading in dice if you want to attack more than one target, or perform maneuvers... I believe that, like playtest MMDs, that'd be at-will.

Proficiency on more saves as you level up seems like a simple way to get the idea across. Combat Reflexes: prof w/DEX saves. Indomitable: prof w/ WIS & CHA saves.

These are all great ideas and I really appreciate your input. Thanks!

 

[DaedalusX51]

I like the direction of the changes you are making, but this class still isn't one I would want to play. It might be potent in combat, but it is still quite mundane. It lacks any real decisions to make on a round by round basis. In combat it does little more than swing its weapon repeatedly. Outside of combat, it lacks any real options to contribute dramatically to social or exploration encounters.

At high levels, the fighter is doing the same types of things it was already doing from level 2. It hasn't gained new epic capabilities like many other classes do. The wizard starts off with prestidigitation and burning hands and ends up with meteorswarm and wish. The high level fighter has bigger numbers and that's it.

Yeah I can see that. With this I was trying to stay within the current Fighter design. If I would start from scratch I would entirely rework the class. I would probably move the subclass choice to Level 1 to allow for differing weapon and armor proficiencies (for things like Unarmed, Grappling, Unarmored, and Gunslinger Fighter Archetypes). Reduce the number of attacks to two and give other features to fill in for the additional damage per round. Remove the extra asi/feats, or at least make them part of a subclass instead. Etc...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now I think the argument about disassociative mechanics has merit,

A lie repeated often enough can have that effect.

If you try to come up with anything while worrying about what someone else might find 'dissociative,' you'll never get anywhere, because it's beyond subjective, it's downright arbitrary.
If you stick with what you find 'associated,' it'll be fine, but narrow, because you have to lock in that narrative.

I think they should have taken an effects first design like the Champions RPG, and made your power source dictate additional things about your abilities. So instead of having a bunch of pregenerated powers you would just create powers and give them your own fluff.

Systems like that work but they obviate classes, almost entirely. Since D&D is primarily concerned with being D&D, and has always had classes...

It could be fun to have an improvised maneuver system that simply is the maneuver design system, though, with a modest restriction to make having maneuvers worthwhile.

Actually, if you level-gate manievers, improv maneuvers could just be 'level 0'

 

[Ashkelon]

Fighters have a number of maneuver points based on their level (I'm thinking 2-6 like proficiency). These points can represent stamina, grit, or combat insight. A fighter can spend these points to perform incredible martial exploits. As the fighter gains levels, the kinds of exploits he can perform also improve.

Here are some rough examples of potential maneuvers:

Tier 1 maneuvers:
Knockdown Attack - spend a maneuver point when you hit with an attack to knock your target prone
Forceful Blow - spend a maneuver point when you hit with an attack to push your target 10 feet
Parry - As a reaction, spenda maneuver point when you are hit by attack to gain a +5 bonus to AC.
Charge - spend a maneuver point to Dash as a bonus action

Tier 2 maneuvers:
Whirlwind - spend a maneuver point and take the attack action. Make half as many attacks (round down) but make them against each creature in your reach.
Defensive Stance - spend a maneuver point to take the dodge action as a bonus action
Heroic Effort - spend a maneuver point to gain advantage to a Str, Dex, or Con check
Mighty Leap - spend a maneuver point to leap 2x as far