D&D (2024) High tier Fighter − the mythic warrior

[Yaarel]

I think the OP forgot to make this a + thread and state all their assumptions which are likely things like

• assume spellcasters will remain the same (this is not about nerfing spellcasters)
• assume you want a mythic martial in the game (if you don't, don't post)
• assume your narrative explanation can unlock up to "anything" as permissions

Heh, to have a thread both have a voting poll and be positive (+) seems awkward.

Generally, keep the good will and assume other posters are sincere. Be civil and constructive.

This is an important discussion with a wide diversity of tastes and gaming experiences, and D&D is a big-tent tradition.

 

[Shardstone]

I am so tired of all the crazy black-and-white opinions people give about the fighter.

Have you people not seen the new classes? Clerics and druids can now choose at 1st level if they want to be a little more martial or a little more caster. Take that very simple technology and just move the dial a little bit.

You can have an option at 11th level, which is where the divide begins anyway and where Tier 3 Begins, to provide people with both a grizzled down-to-earth fighter and a crazy mythic fighter. It just isn't difficult.

Example:

Starting at 11th level, pick one:

• Grizzled Grognard - You've experienced death, battle, and magic a thousand times over. Gain various passive resistances, or new save proficiencies, or the ability to wield any magic weapon no matter what class its meant for, or the ability to grit your teeth and override conditions, etc etc. You gain another option at 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th levels from this list of grizzled stuff.
• Mythic Fighter - Literally any of the 10,000 different ideas posted in this thread for how to achieve a mythic fighter.

It's essentially subclass part 2. It isn't hard. It isn't difficult. You can balance this, because as we now know, the game is balanced around nova damage.

Like, I just don't get it. Why does EVERYONE think it has to be one or the other. It's so narrow-minded. Like, you're telling me that after 50 years of collective playing and designing, we really think it's impossible to have a class that caters to two types of players?

It'll never make sense to me, how some people act like having options to do one or the other ruins their fun. We can have both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. We can have both. Maybe if you guys asked for this instead of trying to relentlessly tear down each other's ideas across a billion threads and five decades, we'd all be a lot happier. But instead, I guess the only good fighter is MY own personal fighter, eh?

 

[Scribe]

I am so tired of all the crazy black-and-white opinions people give about the fighter.

Have you people not seen the new classes? Clerics and druids can now choose at 1st level if they want to be a little more martial or a little more caster. Take that very simple technology and just move the dial a little bit.

You can have an option at 11th level, which is where the divide begins anyway and where Tier 3 Begins, to provide people with both a grizzled down-to-earth fighter and a crazy mythic fighter. It just isn't difficult.

Example:

Starting at 11th level, pick one:

• Grizzled Grognard - You've experienced death, battle, and magic a thousand times over. Gain various passive resistances, or new save proficiencies, or the ability to wield any magic weapon no matter what class its meant for, or the ability to grit your teeth and override conditions, etc etc. You gain another option at 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th levels from this list of grizzled stuff.
• Mythic Fighter - Literally any of the 10,000 different ideas posted in this thread for how to achieve a mythic fighter.

It's essentially subclass part 2. It isn't hard. It isn't difficult. You can balance this, because as we now know, the game is balanced around nova damage.

Like, I just don't get it. Why does EVERYONE think it has to be one or the other. It's so narrow-minded. Like, you're telling me that after 50 years of collective playing and designing, we really think it's impossible to have a class that caters to two types of players?

It'll never make sense to me, how some people act like having options to do one or the other ruins their fun. We can have both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. We can have both. Maybe if you guys asked for this instead of trying to relentlessly tear down each other's ideas across a billion threads and five decades, we'd all be a lot happier. But instead, I guess the only good fighter is MY own personal fighter, eh?

Great post. In before "I want to be mythic at level 1." however.

 

[Yaarel]

You can have an option at 11th level, which is where the divide begins anyway and where Tier 3 Begins, to provide people with both a grizzled down-to-earth fighter and a crazy mythic fighter. It just isn't difficult.

I suggest the divide happens at level 9.

The slot 5 spells are kinda powerful with game changers like Teleportation Circle and Wall of Force (level 9). But the slot 6 spells are kinda meh (level 11), where the best spells are probably Heal and Mass Suggestion, but neither are really game changers.

 

[Shardstone]

I suggest the divide happens at level 9.

The slot 5 spells are kinda powerful with game changers like Teleportation Circle and Wall of Force (level 9). But the slot 6 spells are kinda meh (level 11), where the best spells are probably Heal and Mass Suggestion, but neither are really game changers.

9th works. You could even do 1st and have it scale when PB increases.

 

[Emberashh]

Like, you're telling me that after 50 years of collective playing and designing, we really think it's impossible to have a class that caters to two types of players?

No, but it is quite difficult to define a design space for a character class and then try to cram multiple archtypal concepts into it that all have enough depth and history to them across fiction and history to support being their own classes.

And its not like casters are immune to this. The Druid suffers trying to cram in shapeshifting, and the Sorcerer actually has the inverse problem where its only reason to exist is to prop up a mechanic they couldn't justify letting Wizards have (even though they don't have any actual mechanics other than the cop out "they have spells")

 

[Shardstone]

No, but it is quite difficult to define a design space for a character class and then try to cram multiple archtypal concepts into it that all have enough depth and history to them across fiction and history to support being their own classes.

And its not like casters are immune to this. The Druid suffers trying to cram in shapeshifting, and the Sorcerer actually has the inverse problem where its only reason to exist is to prop up a mechanic they couldn't justify letting Wizards have (even though they don't have any actual mechanics other than the cop out "they have spells")

It is not difficult, we just keep saying that and not doing it. Just because things have been done poorly so far does not mean that it takes mountains of effort to improve them. Neither does it mean that it's impossible at all to prove.

I can link many, many homebrew products that are free that create the exact experience you are looking for a thousand different ways. It is something that can be done.

And even if it is hard, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We pay 70 freaking dollars for these books starting next year, and you're telling me that I'm asking too much for them to actually design well? What?

If I become a shareholder of WotC, do I get to finally post online that they should just do the work to make a class that caters to more people? Let me know at what point we're allowed to say "WotC should just put in the effort to design more playstyle-flexible classes."

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Like, I just don't get it. Why does EVERYONE think it has to be one or the other. It's so narrow-minded. Like, you're telling me that after 50 years of collective playing and designing, we really think it's impossible to have a class that caters to two types of players?

It'll never make sense to me, how some people act like having options to do one or the other ruins their fun. We can have both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. We can have both. Maybe if you guys asked for this instead of trying to relentlessly tear down each other's ideas across a billion threads and five decades, we'd all be a lot happier. But instead, I guess the only good fighter is MY own personal fighter, eh?

Completely agree. Don't get it either.

But to be fair, this isn't an EVERYONE issue. As you can see if you read through the recently closed thread, the "your ruining my fun by having an option I don't like" crowd does seem to be predominately on the anti-mythic martial side.

I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any mythic martial fans say it's important to limit other options or take away current options.

In fact, the mythic martial fans posting that I've seen seem quite happy to:

• keep the current classes as is or let the "I'd rather buff up the mundane Fighter a little instead" crowd work on that version as an alternative
• create a new class that isn't called Fighter if needed
• put this new class in an optional book
• make sure the new class is no more powerful or versatile than the current Wizard

I'm fine having both options in one class and certainly think it's possible, but also fine not if that is better for some folks.

I don't think it's trivial design to do well, but this has always been a choice not to add it. And like you, I really don't get the reasons why having more options (without taking away current options) kills the game for some folks.

 

[Emberashh]

It is not difficult, we just keep saying that and not doing it. Just because things have been done poorly so far does not mean that it takes mountains of effort to improve them. Neither does it mean that it's impossible at all to prove.

I can link many, many homebrew products that are free that create the exact experience you are looking for a thousand different ways. It is something that can be done.

And even if it is hard, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We pay 70 freaking dollars for these books starting next year, and you're telling me that I'm asking too much for them to actually design well? What?

If I become a shareholder of WotC, do I get to finally post online that they should just do the work to make a class that caters to more people? Let me know at what point we're allowed to say "WotC should just put in the effort to design more playstyle-flexible classes."

You can spare the hysterics for one, and for two, game design isn't that simple.

You're not accounting for the reality that designing a character class that is both able to support entirely disparate playstyles and support them to their fullest extent is a near impossible needle to thread.

Theres only so much design space you can give to a particular character class before you run into problems with having too much space (ala 3.5 heritage games, like PF2) that you'd then have to solve by upending what a character class even is (ala PF2).

And at that point, you're writing a new game. Nobody needs a Pathfinder clone.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Heh, to have a thread both have a voting poll and be positive (+) seems awkward.

Generally, keep the good will and assume other posters are sincere. Be civil and constructive.

This is an important discussion with a wide diversity of tastes and gaming experiences, and D&D is a big-tent tradition.

Sorry, your thread, and I shouldn't have assumed.

What does + mean these days though? I thought + was more stay on topic and don't challenge the assumptions in the OP vs. be positive / agree with everyone?

So if you want to focus on the narrative people would like to justify mythic martials a + would just tell people to try and stay on topic and not post things like "people don't want mythic martials" or "forget this, nerf casters" or whatever other tangent these threads usually devolve into.