D&D 5E My tweak to make (Champion) Fighters decent

[Gladius Legis]

Im not wrong, and I dont lack reading comprehension.

No need for personal abuse just because youre angry at yourself for misinterpreting a clarification either.

I did not misinterpret the clarification. You did, by imagining "context" that was never there.

You are clearly a pathetic individual, arguing for the sake of arguing even though (a) the TC has tried to move the thread back on topic, and (b) you were clearly wrong, can't admit it, can't prove otherwise, and certainly can't prove this "context" you keep referring to. That is the behavior of a child, and I suggest you grow up.

 

[Flamestrike]

Well I would like Fighters to be decent. But in practice I would expect a very old school cadence where the PCs hit the dungeon, do a few encounters, then exit and rest up for a week before the next attempt.

The whole point of the 'gritty realism' week long long rest is to stop this from happening.(Also, surely by the time theyve come back, the monsters have reinforced the crap out of the place?)

The players should be encountering 6-8 encounters (before long rest resource recharge happens). You need to make this happen one way or another. Time constrains on adventures (putting them on the clock) is one way.

You might just be better off using a milestone system, or simply saying 'you rest, and awaken feeling refreshed but gain no mechanical benefit from it' and politely letting the players know that they dont 'ping up' with resources until theyve resolved at least 6 encounters.

Or implement a rule that if the players long rest before 6 encounters, they dont get XP for those encounters (or they get half XP) to account for the reduced challenge of those encounters.

Each encounter after the 6th nets them +20 percent XP.

Short rests can be taken at will with no effect on XP, (but subject to random encounters).

 

[Flamestrike]

I did not misinterpret the clarification. You did, by imagining "context" that was never there.

Seems like you also dont understand postmodernism either.

You are clearly a pathetic individual, arguing for the sake of arguing even though (a) the TC has tried to move the thread back on topic, and (b) you were clearly wrong, can't admit it, can't prove otherwise, and certainly can't prove this "context" you keep referring to. That is the behavior of a child, and I suggest you grow up.

You're the one being abusive to some dude on the internet that thinks you're wrong. Pretty confident its not me that needs to grow up here mate.

Anyway, you're wrong on this one. Youve clearly taken the tweet out of context. Feel free to disagree, but hey.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Anyway, you're wrong on this one. Youve clearly taken the tweet out of context. Feel free to disagree, but hey.

Then prove it. Show your evidence of this "context."

 

[Flamestrike]

Then prove it. Show your evidence of this "context."

What? Its in the tweet. Clarification and the discussion that follows.

Do you... know what context is?

 

[Gladius Legis]

What? Its in the tweet. Clarification and the discussion that follows.

Do you... know what context is?

The only MENTION of the fiend/undead thing in the Twitter thread was in one reply by some random bloke (Draconis) who was still clearly confused. Which had nothing at all to do with Crawford's tweet nor the question that prompted it.

You. Are. Wrong. Period. No matter what you say, you are wrong. Accept it, and move on like an adult, if you can.

 

[Barolo]

Topic drift makes baby S'mon sad.

Anyway I get the impression few or no people here would dream of running a no-Feats game and that relatively few use the Champion Fighter subclass at all. So I guess this wasn't a great place to post.

I am one of those people that suggested you let the fighters get a feat only with their extra 6th and 14th level ABIs, or to substitute these specific ABis for new features that could be loosely based on the existing feats. I did not realize when I proposed those options that they would be out of line in the context of a feat-less campaign, so I apologize.

Anyhow, you mentioned more than once that you perceive the fighters as fragile when compared, for instance, with the barbarian. You also mention fighters lack in offensive capabilities when compared to both barbarians (and their reckless attack) and paladins (with their nova potential). And you intend to allow fighters to buy extra uses of action surge with their ABIs. Moreover, you mentioned that the pacing proposed by the book (6-8 encounters) does not fit your campaign.

I was wondering, as I mentioned earlier, if the problem here isn't related to this pacing, instead of feats. Barbarians have absolutely no abilities that refresh on a short rest. Paladins only refresh their channel divinity. The game really balances well when everybody gets to have access to their abilities if they can short rest around twice between long rests. If short rests are not really a thing in a game, I would strongly advice for just converting these short rest abilities into long rest abilities, giving them 3x their short-rest uses. No ABI cost, really, just readjusting resources to better fit the campaign. I guess a 7th level fighter who can use second wind 3 times to recover around 37 HPs in a day will stop feeling too squishy when compared to the barbarian halving damage pretty much permanently. And being able to action surge 3 times during the same period a barbarian can rage 4 times, or a paladin can smite 7 times, should address the fighter's underperforming offensiveness.

 

[Psikerlord#]

How to make the fighter more fun:

Make her a flexible, adaptable warrior, able to switch fighting style/armaments from round to round or combat to combat, to best meet her foe. Add in a some out of combat utility too. Then incorporate some kind of cool Martial Exploits in your combat system, that the fighter in particular is good at taking advantage of (due to her good hit bonus).

Like Low Fantasy Gaming rpg did. Free PDF or Print on demand: https://lowfantasygaming.com/

 

[Darkness]

Folks, keep it civil, please. This bickering needs to stop. After all, this is just an internet forum about pretending to be an elf.

... You are clearly a pathetic individual ... That is the behavior of a child, and I suggest you grow up.

Not cool. I get that debating rules minutiae on the internet can be frustrating, but insults have no place on these boards.

 

[S'mon]

I was wondering, as I mentioned earlier, if the problem here isn't related to this pacing, instead of feats. Barbarians have absolutely no abilities that refresh on a short rest. Paladins only refresh their channel divinity. The game really balances well when everybody gets to have access to their abilities if they can short rest around twice between long rests. If short rests are not really a thing in a game, I would strongly advice for just converting these short rest abilities into long rest abilities, giving them 3x their short-rest uses. No ABI cost, really, just readjusting resources to better fit the campaign. I guess a 7th level fighter who can use second wind 3 times to recover around 37 HPs in a day will stop feeling too squishy when compared to the barbarian halving damage pretty much permanently. And being able to action surge 3 times during the same period a barbarian can rage 4 times, or a paladin can smite 7 times, should address the fighter's underperforming offensiveness.

Yes, agreed - it doesn't necessarily work for every class but Fighter & Warlock should probably be Long Rest with x3 the uses. I think this might tend to overpower Monk and (Moon) Druid though. I'll see what other players think
about doing it for Fighter.