D&D 5E 5e Fighter, Do You Enjoy Playiing It?

[Tony Vargas]

My experience with newbies suggests this isn't the whole story.

5e, even moreso than usual, is as good as the DM running it. If you're more enthusiastic and feel more Empowered running 5e, that will be reflected in the experience of your players.

My group that started with 4e last year likes 5e more, and they don't have any baggage associated with the "classic feel." They do like the fact that they don't have six different complex and detailed powers staring them in the face every turn with walls of jargon embedded in them. A reduction in options makes 5e more accessible to them.

So, they aren't playing casters or haven't reached 3rd level yet? I mean, a 1st level 4e character has 4 powers, a 1st level 5e caster has two cantrips and prepares several spells, any one of which might be cast with the 3 slots available. That's not a reduction in options. Slots & spell levels vs class level vs character level and save DCs and proficiency and so forth are all jargon to the genuinely-new player, too, they're just jargon that's familiar if you've played before.

And, I don't see how having your 4 options neatly in front of you is less complicated than looking up your 6 or 7 options from an alphabetical list of 350+, either.

I am relatively confident that they're not the exception to the rule - 5e has made an effort to lower the barrier to entry, and this means lowering the things one must manage (and so lowering the option quantity).

Nonsense. Casters have more round-to-round options, not fewer, there are more classes and more sub-classes in the PH1 than ever. This is not an option-lite or rules-lite edition of the game from the PoV of a new player approaching it for the first time. It's familiar to us, and it's less bloated than late 2e or 3.5/PF or Essentials+, so it seems 'lite' because we're already used to lifting most of what's there, and notice the stuff that's not.

Your players are probably benefiting from your experience in that respect.

Even players who learned 4e aren't that 'new,' they're used to the d20 system and to dealing with lots of choices, even if those choices are presented in a legacy manner that might be unfamiliar.

...


Now, I will agree that a 5e DM can present a simplified face of the game to new players, via the basic resolution: player describes action, DM rules on how it will be resolved, DM describes results. Give out some pre-gens and the new player can be isolated from much of the minutiae of the game, with the DM providing a sort of power-steering assist to the bits they do interact with. And, that's a good thing, IMHO. 5e is ideal for an experienced DM, whether running for long-time players or complete newbies.

Disagree. To hand-wave complexity, you need to have a high degree of system mastery - you have to know what the complexity accomplishes, so that you don't lose a meaningful game element when you hand-wave it.

Not true, if you base your hand-waving on what's happening at table, in the moment, to make a good experience. You're not modding the rules, you're ruling on the situation. 5e lends itself very neatly to that kind of DM judgement.

You already have to understand the complexity. To add complexity to a robust system requires comparatively low system mastery. Robust is the keyword there: that is the trait that makes it hard to break. A system that seeks out precise balance and carefully contextualized options is not robust, even if there are a few of them.

A robust system is one that's balanced in spite of how you use it, not one that's balanced in spite of how you /change/ it - that latter's simply not possible. And, it has to be balanced up-front. 5e doesn't have any kind of robust balance, because balance isn't front-loaded, it's left to the DM. Adding the kind of balanced-choice complexity 5e lacks would be a matter of game-design, morese than system mastery, and, yes, that's not easy at all. You can absolutely hand-wave complexity in 5e (and it does have a fair bit of it to hand-wave, even if there are some classes that are pretty simplistic in their available in-play options), and there's little risk of balance being harmed by doing so, since balance is something the DM is already empowered to impart upon the game in the measure he finds works best for his group.

In that sense, it takes care of itself, you can blow away any level of complexity you find unappealing in 5e, and impose the level of 'balance' (w/in the player experience) you care to, in a single exercise of DM judgement. You don't even have to consider the two separately. 5e is very organic in that sense, if you think of it in terms of play experience, rather than getting bogged down in the system.

More choices is always more chaff for someone.

There's a difference between a new option that is strictly inferior (chaff for most everyone, trap for anyone suckered in by it), and a meaningful/viable new option (chaff only for those who aren't interested in whatever it models).

 

[I'm A Banana]

5e, even moreso than usual, is as good as the DM running it. If you're more enthusiastic and feel more Empowered running 5e, that will be reflected in the experience of your players.

I'm not the one running it - it's the same guy who ran our most recent 4e games (who is also fairly fresh, though less so than most of the group).

If anything, they've pegged it as a style thing. These are folks who've never visited a D&D message board in their lives, but they've picked up on 4e's more tactical, detailed nature and 5e's more open, interpretive nature, and clearly favor the latter (they've acknowledged that the detail and option wealth might be better for someone who is more "into that stuff" than they are).

So, they aren't playing casters or haven't reached 3rd level yet? I mean, a 1st level 4e character has 4 powers, a 1st level 5e caster has two cantrips and prepares several spells, any one of which might be cast with the 3 slots available. That's not a reduction in options. Slots & spell levels vs class level vs character level and save DCs and proficiency and so forth are all jargon to the genuinely-new player, too, they're just jargon that's familiar if you've played before.

And, I don't see how having your 4 options neatly in front of you is less complicated than looking up your 6 or 7 options from an alphabetical list of 350+, either.

The decision points are bigger and clearer overall for them. We've got a wizard player and a druid player and a bard player. We're 4th level. The distinction between cantrips and other spells is big in their minds. The distinction between burning hands and charm person and find familiar is pretty clear - they're not all options at once.

It seems to be about relevance and differentiation. In fact, my pet theory is that the loosening of roles in 5e helps contribute to that distinction. Now, the wizard player isn't choosing between powers that all do kind of similar things (control the enemy), they're choosing between powers that do remarkably different things (charm, fire damage to an area, get a pet weasel, etc.).

Nonsense. Casters have more round-to-round options, not fewer, there are more classes and more sub-classes in the PH1 than ever. This is not an option-lite or rules-lite edition of the game from the PoV of a new player approaching it for the first time. It's familiar to us, and it's less bloated than late 2e or 3.5/PF or Essentials+, so it seems 'lite' because we're already used to lifting most of what's there, and notice the stuff that's not.

I'm telling you that this doesn't match my experiences. In a group of people who've been playing the game for about a year, moving from 4e to 5e had them make decisions that to them, felt more powerful and relevant and easier to make.

You're welcome to volunteer that your experience is different, but you can't hope to have an actual conversation when you're dismissing all counter-evidence as "nonsense" simply because it doesn't agree with your pre-existing narrative.

Your players are probably benefiting from your experience in that respect.

Again: not the DM. I'm quietly playing my dragonborn cleric next to them. I might help clarify the jarogon for them, but I did that in our 4e game, too.

Not true, if you base your hand-waving on what's happening at table, in the moment, to make a good experience. You're not modding the rules, you're ruling on the situation. 5e lends itself very neatly to that kind of DM judgement.

The confidence to do that is directly related to system mastery. You don't hand-wave something the rules tell you is important without knowing that you know better than the rules, and someone who is a fairly newbie DM isn't going to have that confidence. More complex systems are consequently harder to master and thus more difficult to simply hand-wave away complexity.

A robust system is one that's balanced in spite of how you use it, not one that's balanced in spite of how you /change/ it - that latter's simply not possible. And, it has to be balanced up-front. 5e doesn't have any kind of robust balance, because balance isn't front-loaded, it's left to the DM. Adding the kind of balanced-choice complexity 5e lacks would be a matter of game-design, morese than system mastery, and, yes, that's not easy at all. You can absolutely hand-wave complexity in 5e (and it does have a fair bit of it to hand-wave, even if there are some classes that are pretty simplistic in their available in-play options), and there's little risk of balance being harmed by doing so, since balance is something the DM is already empowered to impart upon the game in the measure he finds works best for his group.

In that sense, it takes care of itself, you can blow away any level of complexity you find unappealing in 5e, and impose the level of 'balance' (w/in the player experience) you care to, in a single exercise of DM judgement. You don't even have to consider the two separately. 5e is very organic in that sense, if you think of it in terms of play experience, rather than getting bogged down in the system.

Right: the lack of precise balance helps 5e accommodate more winging it, making the system more robust.

There's a difference between a new option that is strictly inferior (chaff for most everyone, trap for anyone suckered in by it), and a meaningful/viable new option (chaff only for those who aren't interested in whatever it models).

Not to someone who doesn't use it. The point is, every new option you don't personally use in play is chaff, even if it's good. The 3e rules for incarnum might be great, but that book is pure chaff for every table that has never used it (ie, most tables).

 

[Bayonet]

Played a Sword and Board Battlemaster for the entirety of HotDQ and RoT, had a blast. Never felt that I had a second tier character, and numerous times felt that I was the "star" of the session.

Most of the people complaining about how "terrible" certain classes perform are just looking for something to whine about, imo. The fighter is fine, the ranger is fine, the druid is fine,etc. Just go have fun.

 

[Ashkelon]

Played a Sword and Board Battlemaster for the entirety of HotDQ and RoT, had a blast. Never felt that I had a second tier character, and numerous times felt that I was the "star" of the session.

Most of the people complaining about how "terrible" certain classes perform are just looking for something to whine about, imo. The fighter is fine, the ranger is fine, the druid is fine,etc. Just go have fun.

Nobody says the fighter isn't "fine" when it comes to combat. It is among the top combat classes in the game (if you only measure combat as the ability to deal and receive damage).

What the people who complain about the fighter are complaining about has nothing to do with combat. They are complaining that (to them) the fighter is boring and repetitive. It lacks complexity. It lacks agency. It lacks resource management. It's capabilities are no different at level 20 then they are at level 3. Sure the numbers are higher (more damage, more HP), but what the fighter can actually accomplish hasn't really changed.

Compare that to a spellcaster. The caster has a variety of cantrips giving them round by round options. The caster has a variety of spells that can produce incredible effects above and beyond just dealing damage. The caster has features that can be used to provide utility both in and out of combat. The casters spells also become more dramatic as the caster levels (ie charm person at level 1, suggestion at level 3, dominate at level 7). The casters capabilities actually improve in ways other than just dealing more damage.

Now, nobody is saying they want martial warriors to be able to do everything a spellcaster does. Instead, they want a martial warrior with a similar amount of options and complexity. They want maneuvers that can produce incredible effects that one would expect a warrior who is capable of going toe to toe with 40 foot long dragons to be capable of. They want a warrior who feels significantly different at level 20 then they did at level 3.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The decision points are bigger and clearer overall for them. We've got a wizard player and a druid player and a bard player. We're 4th level. The distinction between cantrips and other spells is big in their minds. The distinction between burning hands and charm person and find familiar is pretty clear - they're not all options at once.

Interesting distinction. Cantrip is distinct from spell, but at-will is not distinct from daily?

In fact, my pet theory is that the loosening of roles in 5e helps contribute to that distinction. Now, the wizard player isn't choosing between powers that all do kind of similar things (control the enemy), they're choosing between powers that do remarkably different things (charm, fire damage to an area, get a pet weasel, etc.).

So, even if the charm, fireball, and summons are available in two different system, they can all be the same in one?

I'm telling you that this doesn't match my experiences.
You're welcome to volunteer that your experience is different

My experience is different, yes. 5e is rather the opposite of 4e, it works very well for players who have played AD&D in the past, or tried but not caught onto 3e, or even formed their opinion of D&D from those versions. And, it's ideal for an experienced DM, even when introducing entirely new players (when you can find them). I haven't seen a lot of acceptance from started-with-4e players, yet, but I don't see it as a problem with 5e, just with players who aren't done playing their existing characters yet - the 4e games still going on are all Paragon. Once they've played out through Epic, I expect to be able to get them to try 5e.

The confidence to do that is directly related to system mastery. You don't hand-wave something the rules tell you is important without knowing that you know better than the rules, and someone who is a fairly newbie DM isn't going to have that confidence. More complex systems are consequently harder to master and thus more difficult to simply hand-wave away complexity.

Agree with the first bit, disagree with the second. General experience & talent as a DM is essential in any kind of off the cuff ruling, including hand-waving away complexity. Mastery of the system is a lot less significant - indeed, being too deep in the system's group-think rabbit-hole could get in the way of some good-for-the-campaign hand-waving.

Conversely, adding complexity to a system is a game-design task, not something you can just do off the cuff, and not something DMing experience necessarily prepares you for.

Right: the lack of precise balance helps 5e accommodate more winging it, making the system more robust.

That's like saying sand is stronger than steel because it's already in such small pieces you can't easily break on of them, nor even notice that you have.

Not to someone who doesn't use it. The point is, every new option you don't personally use in play is chaff, even if it's good. The 3e rules for incarnum might be great, but that book is pure chaff for every table that has never used it (ie, most tables).

Different use of the concept, then. There are mechanical options so bad that they're not real options, at most, they're traps. That's the context in which I meant 'chaff.' Not an in-play context, but a system one.

Nobody says the fighter isn't "fine" when it comes to combat. It is among the top combat classes in the game (if you only measure combat as the ability to deal and receive damage). What the people who complain about the fighter are complaining about has nothing to do with combat.

Which is a facile, but very limited measure.

You could leave a 5e (or most D&D, or even 13A) fighter on 'auto pilot' (Attack the nearest enemy until it's dead, move to the next) pretty easily. You couldn't play most other classes that way without missing out on most of their effectiveness.

The fighter is effective in combat, but, even then, not participating at a high level.

That's intentional: it's meant to be a simplistic class that requires minimal effort to play effectively.

They are complaining that (to them) the fighter is boring and repetitive. It lacks complexity. It lacks agency. It lacks resource management. It's capabilities are no different at level 20 then they are at level 3. Sure the numbers are higher (more damage, more HP), but what the fighter can actually accomplish hasn't really changed.

The obvious answer to that is "play another class." The problem is the fighter is the only class that models a lot of fantasy-genre archetypes. The huge emphasis on magic-using PCs in 5e (33 of 38 sub-classes in the PH), doesn't leave a lot of options for the typical non-magic-wielding hero.

Compare that to a spellcaster. The caster has a variety of cantrips giving them round by round options. The caster has a variety of spells that can produce incredible effects above and beyond just dealing damage. The caster has features that can be used to provide utility both in and out of combat. The casters spells also become more dramatic as the caster levels (ie charm person at level 1, suggestion at level 3, dominate at level 7). The casters capabilities actually improve in ways other than just dealing more damage.

Casters are much more interesting, mechanically. Probably whey 5e presents so many caster options.

Now, nobody is saying they want martial warriors to be able to do everything a spellcaster does. Instead, they want a martial warrior with a similar amount of options and complexity. They want maneuvers that can produce incredible effects that one would expect a warrior who is capable of going toe to toe with 40 foot long dragons to be capable of. They want a warrior who feels significantly different at level 20 then they did at level 3.

Not unreasonable. The 5e fighter doesn't even represent a foundation on which such a thing could be built, though.

 

[Imaro]

My experience is different, yes. 5e is rather the opposite of 4e, it works very well for players who have played AD&D in the past, or tried but not caught onto 3e, or even formed their opinion of D&D from those versions. And, it's ideal for an experienced DM, even when introducing entirely new players (when you can find them). I haven't seen a lot of acceptance from started-with-4e players, yet, but I don't see it as a problem with 5e, just with players who aren't done playing their existing characters yet - the 4e games still going on are all Paragon. Once they've played out through Epic, I expect to be able to get them to try 5e.

Wait... so have you actually run or played 5e? The impression this passage gives is that you are currently waiting for a/some 4e campaign(s) to wrap up before playing/running 5e...

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Nobody says the fighter isn't "fine" when it comes to combat. It is among the top combat classes in the game (if you only measure combat as the ability to deal and receive damage).

What the people who complain about the fighter are complaining about has nothing to do with combat. They are complaining that (to them) the fighter is boring and repetitive. It lacks complexity. It lacks agency. It lacks resource management. It's capabilities are no different at level 20 then they are at level 3. Sure the numbers are higher (more damage, more HP), but what the fighter can actually accomplish hasn't really changed.

Compare that to a spellcaster. The caster has a variety of cantrips giving them round by round options. The caster has a variety of spells that can produce incredible effects above and beyond just dealing damage. The caster has features that can be used to provide utility both in and out of combat. The casters spells also become more dramatic as the caster levels (ie charm person at level 1, suggestion at level 3, dominate at level 7). The casters capabilities actually improve in ways other than just dealing more damage.

Now, nobody is saying they want martial warriors to be able to do everything a spellcaster does. Instead, they want a martial warrior with a similar amount of options and complexity. They want maneuvers that can produce incredible effects that one would expect a warrior who is capable of going toe to toe with 40 foot long dragons to be capable of. They want a warrior who feels significantly different at level 20 then they did at level 3.

One of the things I like about 5e is the way that general options, rather than class specific abilities, are so empowering. I can play a Champion fighter with no feats at all and still knock critters over, push them around the battlefield, grapple them, and have a pretty good chance of success at it. The special abilities of the Battle Master just make me better at it. And then there are things you can improvise with the rules tending to encourage the DM to just make it an opposed ability check--that opens up a lot of things and encourages you to think outside the character sheet. In, say 3e, if I wanted to try that stuff it was just ineffective without specific character options, such as feats or class features, to mitigate the extreme "cool penalties" involved in trying anything other than attacking. 5e let's me cut lose and just try anything, and not be afraid its going to take 3 roll and an attack of opportunity for a slim chance of success. Why even bother?

Now, I liked the 4e fighter with all its cool stuff (and I don't even particularly like 4e), so this isn't about not being able to appreciate all the interesting options on the character sheet. I like the Battle Master too. I wouldn't object to a fighter with more special stuff (although I'm doubtful that 5e has a framework that allows more than a Battle Master level of options), but I love the fact that I can get a similar feel of awesome with a 5e fighter without needing special stuff on my character sheet.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wait... so have you actually run or played 5e? The impression this passage gives is that you are currently waiting for a/some 4e campaign(s) to wrap up before playing/running 5e...

Clearly, from what I said, I've run 5e for new-to-gaming players, for players who started with 4e, and for those who started with and/or formed their impressions of the game from earlier editions. I can't say I'm nearly as impressed with it from the player side of the screen as from the DM side, though (3.5's the reverse - liked to play, didn't run it much).

And, yes, there are a number of 4e campaigns being run in the broader circles I game in - I run one and play in another, in addition to running 5e, and playing in an occasional 3.5 game, and, very occasionally, running a little old-school Gamma World.

The interesting thing about the 4e campaigns is that they are campaigns, they're mostly Paragon (one's Epic), and the interest seems (and I may be reading more into it than what's there) to be mainly in the campaign, not a matter of resisting a new system. So I fully expect them to come around, eventually, and return to Encounters, not turn into some separate enclave like the Pathfinder fans around here have.

 

[Imaro]

Clearly, from what I said, I've run 5e for new-to-gaming players, for players who started with 4e, and for those who started with and/or formed their impressions of the game from earlier editions.

Apparently it wasn't clear, that's why I asked instead of assuming. Thanks for clearing it up though.

 

[RotGrub]

Some of the battlemaster maneuvers are a bit weak or low in utility.

In our game, I replaced Second Wind with a reaction for the same number of temp hit points (which are immediately used for the damage being taken).

It makes more sense to me that the Fighter can react and deflect most of an attack off of his armor, than it does that he can heal himself.

It typically results in more or less the same end result, but the flavor is different. And it prevents the Fighter PC from taking multiple short rests to heal himself up from low hit points to high.

It does make more sense that way, we have a similar house rule at our table.

It's just rather unfortunate that Mike Mearls (in the last podcast) wants healing to be a legacy feature of the fighter class. He thinks that if he's done his job right people will look back on the fighter and think "Heal". It's one of the most hated features of the fighter at my table and it certainly won't ever set a precedent. To be honest I'm almost angry at his attempt to force that perspective on everyone. Sure, some people might want that, but many feel that an optional version of Second Wind should have been provided.