D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[Celtavian]

I gave an example earlier with "Crack the Shell" - an attack that deals damage an imposes an AC penalty. Can you honestly not think of a literary example of this?

Or, if you want a real world example - Half Swording where you grip the blade of the sword and thrust it like a spear - extra damage attack, and probably turns the sword of any type into piercing damage. How would I model that?

Are you honestly saying you can't imagine a stunning attack with a maul or a mace? How about a simple knockdown attack? Where I actually deal damage AND knock something on its ass instead of giving up dealing damage. Heck, you mention Conan - how do I reliably throw my sword? That's certainly something that's done in genre fiction. How about a Stop Thrust - where you "counter thrust attack into the opponent’s forward movement or oncoming attack" to stop someone's movement toward you. A fairly simple manoeuvre that reduces a target's movement to zero for one round and still deals damage.

These are all things you can't actually do with a fighter.

Why would you want something as limited as Crack the Shell when you can play 3E/Pathfinder and have Sunder? Or Stunning Attack? Or a martial arts style? Or Intimidating Prowess that allows you to use the intimidate skill to scare demons with a glare? I had a Fighter in high level Pathfinder that started down a demons and dragons he was so damn intimidating. They called him The General. He gave a command and no one questioned it. His entire persona was one of fear and discipline. No one could withstand his intimidating glare except a paladin with immunity to fright.

All the things you seem to be asking for were created in Pathfinder and expanded on Mythic Adventures. Why do you think my group loved Pathfinder more than 4E? Because you could create this amazingly versatile and powerful martials. The majority of my group prefers martial characters or some kind of martial hybrid. They had tons of fun making characters in the Pathfinder system because it added so many options over even 3.5.

I took care of limiting spells on the backend to ensure the caster-martial disparity did not affect spotlight disparity. I don't like casters usurping what I've designed martial characters either. I always had one player that liked to play casters trying to take out the enemy I designed for the martial characters because he figured he had a weak Will save. I made sure that didn't happen as a DM because it's annoying. When I create a martial enemy I want to see that mano y mano fight between two badass martials play out. When some annoying caster decides he wants to interfere, I take care of that as a DM with a magic item or buff or an enemy that gives that caster no time to spend on some other enemy.

If you want a badass martial, take a look at Pathfinder. It's a far better system than 4E was for building an amazingly versatile and badass martial character. Even when we switched to 5E, my martial loving players had ten or more concepts for martial characters they still wanted to try after already having tried just as many.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In any case though, what difference would it make if they did go full bore dissociated in an optional character? Why would that bother you in the slightest? It's not like you're going to use it and it makes me happy. Why do you care?

Why do you get so angry about what other people care about? Say WotC starts publishing a whole bunch of material that caters to you and the 4E folks, and I see the new direction and get turned off 5E and start playing something else, possibly AD&D 2nd edition and possibly something non-TTRPG. Why do you care? Why do other people's preferences offend you so much?

But watching Sacrosanct and Hemlock go through the mental contortions to ignore the dissociated nature of 5e just to avoid having to have any "taint" of 4e in 5e is hilarious. Good grief, how does one "draw upon reserve energy" to completely heal potentially lethal wounds? After all, a fighter could be bloodied by an attack - thus have actual physical appearance of damage, the player drops his second wind and poof, no more cuts and he mag... err... oops, not magically, regenerates. But, this is, of course, all associated, because, apparently, fighter training gives me a special button I can push in my belly button that fills up my Hit Points.

Hussar, you need to review the difference between "dissociated mechanic" and "unrealistic mechanic." You seem to be confusing one with the other. As long as the fighter is aware of the fact that he has a reserve of energy that gives him more HP, and he knows that that reserve gets depleted when drawn upon but recharges after an hour, the ability is associated by definition. It's still Vancian, and it's still a superpower, but it is in no way dissociated.

The easiest way to perceive the difference is to look at the player’s decision-making process when using the mechanic: If the player’s decision can be directly equated to a decision made by the character, then the mechanic is associated. If it cannot be directly equated, then it is dissociated.

I'm not in love with the fighter's version of Psionic Regeneration, a.k.a. Second Wind, but it's in RAW so I'll live with it. Apparently D&D fighters regenerate.

Also, the way you impute ulterior motives to other people is annoying.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] - never play Pathfinder for the same reason I stopped playing 3e. Not interested in spending hours doing the math or needing a spreadsheet program to play. There's a reason it's nicknamed Mathfinder.
[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] you are the one who brought up dissociated mechanics and said you don't want to see them in the game. What motive am I missing here? How is the fighter aware that he has a Second Wind? Where does it say that? How, exactly does the fighter trigger it in game?

The only reason it bothers me is that you got what you want. You got exactly what you wanted. But if an optional class comes out, that will turn you off the game? Really? Someone having the option of a 4e style character in 5e will cause you to stop playing, even if it's never played at your table?

I'm not asking for a whole bunch. I'm asking for one subclass. Again, I'm answering the question asked. I want a non-magical character that is roughly equal to a caster in complexity. Going back to 3e isn't an option for me. That's too much complexity. Never minding the imbalance in the system between casters and non-casters. That's a separate issue.

Why is having the option for a complex fighter so threatening?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

@Hemlock you are the one who brought up dissociated mechanics and said you don't want to see them in the game. What motive am I missing here?

You assert a bad faith ulterior motive for disliking dissociated mechanics, that is to 'avoid having to have any "taint" of 4E in 5e'. In reality, some people just can't stand games with dissociated mechanics, independent of the existence of 4E. I never heard the term "dissociated mechanic" until five or six years after my brief exposure to 4E, but I immediately recognized it as a major reason why I found 4E offputting. Unsurprisingly, I don't want 5E to be offputting in that same way, but to say that my aversion to dissociation is based on a dislike for 4E is to confuse cause and effect.

Don't put words in my mouth.

How is the fighter aware that he has a Second Wind? Where does it say that? How, exactly does the fighter trigger it in game?

PHB 72: "You have a limited well of stamina that you can draw on to protect yourself from harm. On your turn, you can use a bonus action to regain hit points... must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again." Apparently, the fighter breathes deeply for a second and mentally commands his wounds to knit together, before launching a renewed attack. He knows he can't do it again until he's had a good meal because trying to do so again fails. As I said, I don't love it, and it is an odd superpower to have--but it isn't dissociated because the fighter knows about it.

Indomitable is far more problematic and is arguably dissociated, as are Legendary Resistances. I'm on record wanting a better, associated form of Legendary Resistance, e.g. old-school Magic Resistance which is a flat percentage instead of an ablative resource. Haven't done anything about it, but that LR mechanic is one of my least-favorite things about 5E.

Why is having the option for a complex fighter so threatening?

There you go again with imputing false motives. It's not "threatening." I've said before in this thread that if you have proposals for ideas which are non-Vancian and non-dissociated, I'm willing to hear them. The whole "stance" idea analogous to psionic disciplines sounds okay-ish. Not my cup of tea but it wouldn't put me off 5E if there were a class based on martial arts stances. Personally I'd rather have martial complexity be based around called shots and GURPS: Martial Arts-type maneuvers, but if you want to go the "stance" route and say that some stances give you bonus AC and others crack armor on a hit and others stun, fine, write that up and submit it to WotC.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Sigh. For the ten thousandth time THIS IS NOT ABOUT POWER. This is not about giving fighters abilities which are as powerful or more powerful than what you can do with magic. It really, really, really, really isn't. Is that clear enough? How can I clarify this further?

This is about getting a fighter class that has as many OPTIONS as a caster class.

And, I'd point out that there are fighters that already have reality bending abilities - the Eldritch Knight. So, obviously, it's not too hard to have a spell casting fighter that's balanced with the rest of the game. We already have a mundane fighter with some degree of options in the Battlemaster. Why can't that be taken a few steps further and give me a mundane fighter that has as many options as an Eldritch Knight? Someone that is choosing a new ability every level (EK's get a new spell known just about every level) instead of choosing 3 at 3rd level and not again for several levels after that.

Looks to me like you would just be better off sticking with 4th edition.

The less limited resource mechanics for martials the better. Why should I have need to rest in order to change stances or do a different maneuver? This was something I hated in 4th edition and I don't want to see repeated in this edition. There is nothing wrong with the fighter, it provides plenty of combat and out of combat abilities, just not enough for you. That's like saying there is something wrong with oranges because you don't happen to like them. You want more options then play a EK, if you don't then play another edition.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Why is having the option for a complex fighter so threatening?

We already have options for a complex fighter.

I just think at this point anything outside of 4th edition just doesn't meet your standards and while there is nothing wrong with that, there is also nothing wrong with the current fighter.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think they should eliminate superiority dice myself. Focus the Battle-master's maneuvers around fighting techniques. Allow him to only use one maneuver per round to show he is focusing on fighting in that manner for that round.

Yes I like this alternative too

 

[pemerton]

When I said "superpowers", that doesn't mean something as powerful as a magic user's spells. It means abilities that are above and beyond what someone can do without the aid of magic or some other similar aid.

To the best of my knowledge, in the real world (i) there is no magic, and yet (ii) a single sword blow can blind, or maim or even kill a person, even a person who is him-/herself a skilled hand-to-hand fighter.

I don't see what giving fighter PCs the ability to perform condition infliction, or similar sorts of manoeuvres, has to do with "abilities that are above and beyond what someone can do without the aid of magic".

Why should I have need to rest in order to change stances or do a different maneuver?

Why should the fighter have to rest to perform another Action Surge? Whatever answer you give to that question, it will apply equally well to the question that I have quoted.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Why should the fighter have to rest to perform another Action Surge? Whatever answer you give to that question, it will apply equally well to the question that I have quoted.

If you were going to use an example to make a point you should have used something better.

Action Surge
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your
normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take
one additional action on top o f your regular action and a
possible bonus action.

I can see how you would need a rest after this. Ever see the mother lift the car off of her child by pushing herself beyond her limits? I'm sure she needed a nice rest afterwards. This is D&D after all so a little "outside of believability" is okay but needing to rest in order to change fighting styles is just ridiculous. That would be like me saying I can't switch from using Karate to Kung-fu until I've had a rest.

 

[pemerton]

If you were going to use an example to make a point you should have used something better.

Action Surge
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your
normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take
one additional action on top o f your regular action and a
possible bonus action.

I can see how you would need a rest after this.

But you don't need a rest after it. You can keep fighting, running, jumping, skipping as long as you like. The only muscle affected by your limit-pushing exertion is your action surge muscle.

I don't see any reason why use of stances, manoeuvres etc couldn't have similarly specialised muscle groups!