D&D 5E Building a better Fighter

[Hawk Diesel]

I personally don't understand the issue people continue to bring with TWF. Technically, anyone can use TWF. The fighting style only allows a fighter to add their strength/dexterity modifier to the attack. It's always there as an option, and it will always compete with other action options for the action economy. I don't think a fighter should always be using their actions/bonus actions for attacking. TWF Fighters still gain a bonus to using their bonus action for that extra attack. But it's not always the best option, and I don't believe it should be. Just because a wizard specializes in abjuration, doesn't mean that they won't occasionally want to/need to blast something.

One thing I would like to see added to the TWF fighting style would be disassociating it for the attack action. This can create benefit for the fighter that uses it that has an effect that actually is meaningful difference between a TWF fighter and a rogue dual-wielding. Such a rogue must use their whole action (main action and bonus action) to get something out of using that second weapon. A TWF fighter could use their main action with Dodging (primary weapon being used defensively) while their secondary weapon can still make an attack.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like this. It's actually more useful and interesting than action surge for the level. It's not until getting Extra Attack that I've felt really interested in using Action Surge. So I like this change. Except . . . it intereferes so much with dual wielding and doesn't get me anything that my battlemaster can't already access. I'd probably wind up going sword and board or twohander with all my future fighters with this change. That's not a negative thing, I just mention it so you're aware of a side effect of the change.

I like the 7th level battlemaster change. It feels very battlemastery without being a big boost in power.

I don't know if upping the SD from Relentless to 2 is necessary but of course I like that change

Yes, I'd mentioned that same critique. I don't think a 1-to-1 translation of Cunning Action to "Shrewd Fighting" or "Fighter Action" or whatever is desirable because of the increased value bonus actions have for fighters. I was thinking something inspired by Cunning Action...

I actually think making "Fighter Action" more reactive (possibly without spending your Reaction) is more in line with how we played fighters at my table back in AD&D days. That reactive play style is reflected in the 3.Xe Combat Reflexes feat (which was commonly taken by fighters as I understand) and the 4e "unlimited opportunity attacks" fighter.

And, if a bottom line goal is to make the fighter "The Class You Start With", letting the player break the action economy a bit (within reasonable constraints) makes a lot of sense. I know I've played with people who just jumped out there and said "Wait, the giant is attacking him? OK, I'm going to interpose myself between them" and the rules would have the DM say "sorry, got to wait your turn."

To put my money where my mouth is...

[SECTION]Martial Reaction. Starting at 2nd level, once per round either on your turn or at the end of another creature's turn, you can adapt quickly to changing conditions in the heat of battle. You can Disarm, Grapple, Shove, equip a shield, change the grip on a weapon from one-handed to two-handed (or vice versa), or stow and draw a weapon for free.[/SECTION]

As a design note: You'll see the example I gave above about "interposing" oneself isn't possible. That's because I see subclasses building on Martial Reaction, just like the Thief subclass builds on the rogue's Cunning Action with Fast Hands.

Basically, it's an adaptation of a monster's Legendary Action for the fighter, restricting the options to non-damaging ones, restricting it to 1/round, but letting the fighter take them on his turn OR after another creature's turn.

 

[Satyrn]

[SECTION]Martial Reaction. Starting at 2nd level, once per round either on your turn or at the end of another creature's turn, you can adapt quickly to changing conditions in the heat of battle. You can Disarm, Grapple, Shove, equip a shield, change the grip on a weapon from one-handed to two-handed (or vice versa), or stow and draw a weapon for free.[/SECTION]

As a design note: You'll see the example I gave above about "interposing" oneself isn't possible. That's because I see subclasses building on Martial Reaction, just like the Thief subclass builds on the rogue's Cunning Action with Fast Hands.

Indeed, that is much better.

I would have it use the fighter's Reaction, though. Perhaps just because I rarely even use my fighter Reaction, I wouldn't be afraid to expend it anyway.

 

[Quickleaf]

Indeed, that is much better.

I would have it use the fighter's Reaction, though. Perhaps just because I rarely even use my fighter Reaction, I wouldn't be afraid to expend it anyway.

Either way could work, it depends on what's competing for the fighter's use of Reaction in the rest of the class design (and game design). Some competition is good – it encourages players to make strategic choices – but too much competition is not good.

For example, if it's a Reaction using the rest of the PHB fighter unmodified, then it competes with opportunity attacks, the Protection fighting style, the Defensive Duelist feat, Mage Slayer feat, Sentinel feat, Shield Master feat, War Caster feat, and the shield spell. I think those are the principle points of competition.

For me, that was a bit too much potential for competition. I could easily imagine a fighter with Protection fighting style and Sentinel feat having to choose between 4 options for their Reaction.

If you compare to a rogue's Cunning Action...how many uses for a bonus action does a rogue have besides Cunning Action? It comes down to just feats: Charger, Crossbow Expert, and possible new Unearthed Arcana feats in the pipeline. That keeps the choice really simple, minimizing competition for their bonus action.

 

[Quickleaf]

I personally don't understand the issue people continue to bring with TWF. Technically, anyone can use TWF. The fighting style only allows a fighter to add their strength/dexterity modifier to the attack. It's always there as an option, and it will always compete with other action options for the action economy. I don't think a fighter should always be using their actions/bonus actions for attacking. TWF Fighters still gain a bonus to using their bonus action for that extra attack. But it's not always the best option, and I don't believe it should be. Just because a wizard specializes in abjuration, doesn't mean that they won't occasionally want to/need to blast something.

TWF is more desirable for fighters and rangers for the reason you point out (Fighting Style).

IME, there is very much an expectation among players running PCs who use TWF regularly that they should be able to use TWF most of the time. Not saying whether that expectation is "right" or "wrong", but it's clearly something players I've gamed with want – it's why they choose TWF, to be a whirlwind of death.

But there are more bonus action options for fighters than there are for rogues...

Rogues: Cunning Action, TWF, and maaaybe the Charger or Crossbow Expert feat. So the rogue might have 2 choices.

Fighters: Martial Action/Shrewd Fighting, Second Wind, TWF, and the Charger, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Shield Master, and Tavern Brawler feats. A fighter could have 3-4 choices.

As a personal design philosophy, if I see the potential for a choice between 4 or more options competing for the same design space, I consider that too many. Because IME players in the heat of the moment do best when presented with 3 or less choices for ancillary things like reactions/bonus actions. YMMV.

One thing I would like to see added to the TWF fighting style would be disassociating it for the attack action. This can create benefit for the fighter that uses it that has an effect that actually is meaningful difference between a TWF fighter and a rogue dual-wielding. Such a rogue must use their whole action (main action and bonus action) to get something out of using that second weapon. A TWF fighter could use their main action with Dodging (primary weapon being used defensively) while their secondary weapon can still make an attack.

Brilliant!

 

[Satyrn]

I personally don't understand the issue people continue to bring with TWF.

I have no issue with TWF. I'm enjoying my dual wielding gnome battlemaster immensely.

I was just pointing out how your suggested changes seem to interact with TWF, and what that would mean for me - a player who enjoys playing fighters - were I to play at your table.

I rather figured you'd like some halfway relevant feedback on your untested idea: It would turn me off TWF as a fighter, but would totally have me wanting to play a sword and boarder. Probably a Champion.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I have no issue with TWF. I'm enjoying my dual wielding gnome battlemaster immensely.

I was just pointing out how your suggested changes seem to interact with TWF, and what that would mean for me - a player who enjoys playing fighters - were I to play at your table.

I rather figured you'd like some halfway relevant feedback on your untested idea: It would turn me off TWF as a fighter, but would totally have me wanting to play a sword and boarder. Probably a Champion.

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to come off as dismissive, I do definitely appreciate the feedback. I think I just have a blind spot regarding the TWF fighter and how the changes I propose interact with the concept or serve to dissuade it as a relevant option.

 

[Satyrn]

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to come off as dismissive, I do definitely appreciate the feedback. I think I just have a blind spot regarding the TWF fighter and how the changes I propose interact with the concept or serve to dissuade it as a relevant option.

Well, it's a pretty straight forward dissuasion, and is very much the same sort of thing that would stop me from taking proficiency in Athletics if I was playing a Champion.

If I pick Athletics, it interacts poorly later on with Remarkable Athlete, by making Remarkable Athlete less useful than it would be if I'd taken History proficiency instead.

Likewise, with Shrewd Fighting in place my Two Weapon Fighting Style becomes less useful every time I use my bonus action for Shrewd Fighting. But if I'd taken any other Fighting Style, then I can use Shrewd Action every round without there being any reduction in my fighting style's benefit.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I know it's been mentioned before, but then what if the fighting style just allowed you one additional attack when you take the attack action?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Ok, here's what I'm thinking.

Two-Weapon Fighting
While you are wielding two weapons, you can make one additional attack when you take the attack action.

What does this mean? Well, TWF Fighters get an additional attack. They can also continue to use a bonus action to make an additional attack (as normal) but also it would not get the benefit of your strength/dexterity modifier.