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

[Quickleaf]

I've been seriously tackling many of the questions raised in this thread in a thoughtful, deliberate re-design of the 5th edition fighter which you can find over here as PDF: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ighter-and-others-(-quot-Class-X-quot-series)
[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] I've tried to emphasize different fighter play styles with each of the 5 sub-classes (cavalier, guardian, slayer, veteran, warlord), inserting elements of exploration, role-play, and just plain flavorful stuff... all while acknowledging that the fighter's main schtick is combat.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I've incorporated several non-combat abilities in the sub-classes, and the option to swap out Ability Score Improvement (or a feat) for a "mark of prestige" from the DMG, which includes things like letter of recommendation, medal, parcel of land, special favors or special rights, a stronghold, title, or training.
[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] I've attempted to strike a balance between wanting engaging visceral tactical combat & 5e's simpler mechanics that do well with a looser theater of the mind style. I ended up creating what are essentially encounter powers themed according to weapon type (e.g. two-handed weapon talents, dual weapon talents, archery talents), with the caveat that they can be recharged either with a short rest or meeting specific recharge requirements within battle. Still playing around with the design, but I think the concept has a lot of potential.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hit an upright target with AF and Trip Attack and suddenly they're prone (giving advantage to others who melee attack it) and on fire (taking ongoing damage unless they take an action to end it). Precise attack makes it more likely to hit, but it doesn't have the same "debuff their defenses" effect. The idea here would be that you could debuff the defenses and add ongoing damage to four targets in a round if you spent all your superiority on it (mimicking a daily spike), while 4e-style Crack the Shell is limited to one target, showing how it's not exactly potent in 5e's context.

But once you trip the target with your first attack, you get disadvantage on all of your other Alchemist's Fire attacks because ranged weapons like Alchemist's Fire are penalized by prone targets. Furthermore, you lose out on your proficiency bonus to-hit (because Alchemist's Fire counts as an improvised weapon) and also on the extra damage that Trip attacks normally impose, and it will end up being 5 or 6 rounds before your Trip Attack does as much damage as you normally would have done with a simple bow and arrow. I'm not seeing anything there to justify spending 200 gp on Alchemist's Fire and four battlemaster maneuver dice.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've been seriously tackling many of the questions raised in this thread in a thoughtful, deliberate re-design of the 5th edition fighter which you can find over here as PDF: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ighter-and-others-(-quot-Class-X-quot-series)

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] I've tried to emphasize different fighter play styles with each of the 5 sub-classes (cavalier, guardian, slayer, veteran, warlord), inserting elements of exploration, role-play, and just plain flavorful stuff... all while acknowledging that the fighter's main schtick is combat.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I've incorporated several non-combat abilities in the sub-classes, and the option to swap out Ability Score Improvement (or a feat) for a "mark of prestige" from the DMG, which includes things like letter of recommendation, medal, parcel of land, special favors or special rights, a stronghold, title, or training.

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] I've attempted to strike a balance between wanting engaging visceral tactical combat & 5e's simpler mechanics that do well with a looser theater of the mind style. I ended up creating what are essentially encounter powers themed according to weapon type (e.g. two-handed weapon talents, dual weapon talents, archery talents), with the caveat that they can be recharged either with a short rest or meeting specific recharge requirements within battle. Still playing around with the design, but I think the concept has a lot of potential.

Kudos for doing the work!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The in combat choice palet is varied enough with shove, grapple, and improvisation. The issue is, those options generally tend to be less potent than a single attack. As such, the optimal choice is to simply make a basic attack. That being said, I would prefer limited use abilities (tied to some type of resource mechanic), that give the warrior capabilities that cannot be replicated through the current combat actions (shove, grapple, improvise).

You may be underusing shoves. Once your shove bonus gets high enough that you have a 75-80% chance of it working (+8 or so relative to the target) and you get multiple attacks, shoving an enemy once during the combat is probably better than a basic, non-GWM attack, especially if you have melee allies. Your party-mate the strongest bard in the world clearly recognizes this fact (he's built his whole character around Athletics, including Shield Master and Resilient (Con) so as not to lose Enhance Ability (Strength)). I don't know if he is fully exploiting it defensively, but he's obviously exploiting much of Shove's offensive potential by letting his GWM buddy (you) get powerful attacks in at advantage. That's totally worth the loss of a single attack, and when you add in the potential defensive advantages [1] it is clearly superior to a basic attack in any situation where the above assumptions hold.

[1] "Restricting enemy movement" + "imposing disadvantage on opportunity attacks" = "enemy gets only one opportunity attack at disadvantage while PCs are getting in a full GWM attack sequence any time the bard goes before the GWM guy."

 

[Ashkelon]

You may be underusing shoves. Once your shove bonus gets high enough that you have a 75-80% chance of it working (+8 or so relative to the target) and you get multiple attacks, shoving an enemy once during the combat is probably better than a basic, non-GWM attack, especially if you have melee allies. Your party-mate the strongest bard in the world clearly recognizes this fact (he's built his whole character around Athletics, including Shield Master and Resilient (Con) so as not to lose Enhance Ability (Strength)). I don't know if he is fully exploiting it defensively, but he's obviously exploiting much of Shove's offensive potential by letting his GWM buddy (you) get powerful attacks in at advantage. That's totally worth the loss of a single attack, and when you add in the potential defensive advantages (restricting enemy movement + imposing disadvantage on opportunity attacks = enemy gets only one opportunity attack at disadvantage while PCs are getting in a full GWM attack sequence) it is clearly superior to a basic attack in any situation where the above assumptions hold.

I don't deny shoves usefulness for Shield Masters. Being able to shove as a bonus action and not having to trade an attack to shove, is a huge part of this though. For a regular fighter this isn't the case however.

For a regular fighter, you only have proficiency in Athletics, no expertise and no free advantage. This means
Your chance to successfully shove an enemy usually is between 40-65%. Before you reach level 10, you only have 2 attacks per round. So, trading one of your two attacks for a maneuver that has only ~50% chance to work, that will only increase your other attacks by ~25% just isn't worth it. Even at 3 attacks, shoving isn't worth it.

For shove to be worthwhile to the Strength based great weapon fighter, they need to be in a heavily melee oriented party with no one else who can shove better. They need to have their party make 8 attacks against the shoved enemy for the trade off to be a good one. Mathematically, it is almost never a good idea to shove as a great weapon warrior (and always a good idea to as a shield master).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't deny shoves usefulness for Shield Masters. Being able to shove as a bonus action and not having to trade an attack to shove, is a huge part of this though. For a regular fighter this isn't the case however.

For a regular fighter, you only have proficiency in Athletics, no expertise and no free advantage. This means
Your chance to successfully shove an enemy usually is between 40-65%. Before you reach level 10, you only have 2 attacks per round. So, trading one of your two attacks for a maneuver that has only ~50% chance to work, that will only increase your other attacks by ~25% just isn't worth it. Even at 3 attacks, shoving isn't worth it.

For shove to be worthwhile to the Strength based great weapon fighter, they need to be in a heavily melee oriented party with no one else who can shove better. They need to have their party make 8 attacks against the shoved enemy for the trade off to be a good one. Mathematically, it is almost never a good idea to shove as a great weapon warrior (and always a good idea to as a shield master).

Let's say you're not in a heavily melee-oriented party. That presumably means you're in a ranged-heavy party. Under those conditions the defensive advantages of Shove shine brighter than the offensive advantages. I'm not sure where you get your "~25%" figure because typically advantage is worth at least a 50% boost to your damage, but let's say you get a 0% boost because you're stuck shoving the guy twice before he goes down. You then retreat 30' (taking an opportunity attack in the process), and now next turn he can only move 15' and still attack. You're proactively shutting him down in a way very similar to Sentinel, and your whole ranged party gets a full round of attacks on him (minus the two attacks that you gave up to shove him prone) in exchange for the one opportunity attack at disadvantage that you took from him. Since ranged-heavy parties trade distance for damage, this trade is likely worth it even if he ignores you and tries to Dash toward your buddies at partial speed.

The offensive advantages are significant but they're only half the package.

But yes, this doesn't work too well unless you actually have a good Athletics score and buddies with ranged weapons. If you're working with a +7, trying to prone minotaurs with a +4, and everybody else on your team is melee-oriented... you should probably give up and just hit him. You're not in a position to meaningfully benefit from shoves, and recognizing that fact is part of tactics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But once you trip the target with your first attack, you get disadvantage on all of your other Alchemist's Fire attacks because ranged weapons like Alchemist's Fire are penalized by prone targets. Furthermore, you lose out on your proficiency bonus to-hit (because Alchemist's Fire counts as an improvised weapon) and also on the extra damage that Trip attacks normally impose, and it will end up being 5 or 6 rounds before your Trip Attack does as much damage as you normally would have done with a simple bow and arrow. I'm not seeing anything there to justify spending 200 gp on Alchemist's Fire and four battlemaster maneuver dice.

Yah, the idea is to trip four different targets. You do lose Prof. Bonus but Bounded Accuracy don't care THAT much (if you're hitting heavily armored critters, Precise->Trip is the better choice!).

But the upthrust is that "Crack the Shell", directly ported, is less powerful and flexible than the current Battlemaster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yah, the idea is to trip four different targets. You do lose Prof. Bonus but Bounded Accuracy don't care THAT much (if you're hitting heavily armored critters, Precise->Trip is the better choice!).

But the upthrust is that "Crack the Shell", directly ported, is less powerful and flexible than the current Battlemaster.

That's a bizarre little statement. The Battlemaster can get up to 6 maneuvers from a list of 18, and use them several times, possibly in the same round. Of course that's more flexible than one use of one specific ability (unless that ability were a summon or Wish or something). OTOH, to make a valid comparison, a 4e fighter could get 16+ uses of 'exploits' (10 attacks, 2 of them at-will and 6 or so utilities) chosen from a list of around 400. That's vastly more flexible than the Battlemaster.

Power, OTOH, is relative. In 5e, PCs are more powerful in some absolute senses, because the game is tuned for fast combat, and that requires weighting offense over defense/utility/&c. Raw numbers attacks/action, damage/attack, make the 5e fighter 'powerful' in an offensive(pi) sense, regardless of archetype, or even leaving archetype aside.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's a bizarre little statement. The Battlemaster can get up to 6 maneuvers from a list of 18, and use them several times, possibly in the same round. Of course that's more flexible than one use of one specific ability (unless that ability were a summon or Wish or something).

I am comparing the two going nova.

A level 5 battlemaster can do more impressive things than crack the shell, more often, and in more contexts. Given that Crack the Shell is a level 5 daily, the presumption is that this is the most powerful nova that a level 5 fighter is capable of - double damage plus a -2 AC and ongoing 5 damage for one attack. A 5e battlemaster puts that to shame - they can do MORE damage and impose BIGGER penalties in the same amount of time ("one round"), and can adapt to the situation they face on the fly better (vs. one big enemy, they can stack multiple effects; against a group, they can spread it around in an area).

That is both more powerful and more flexible than using crack the shell.

OTOH, to make a valid comparison, a 4e fighter could get 16+ uses of 'exploits' (10 attacks, 2 of them at-will and 6 or so utilities) chosen from a list of around 400. That's vastly more flexible than the Battlemaster.

Over the course of many combats, and at the level of character build, a 4e fighter might have the edge on versatility, having more powers, but I'd need to see some evidence for that...I'm not sure that it's true out of the gate.

The 400 possible powers are mostly irrelevant - I'm talking about how the fighter operates at the table, not about theorycrafting builds.

Power, OTOH, is relative. In 5e, PCs are more powerful in some absolute senses, because the game is tuned for fast combat, and that requires weighting offense over defense/utility/&c. Raw numbers attacks/action, damage/attack, make the 5e fighter 'powerful' in an offensive(pi) sense, regardless of archetype, or even leaving archetype aside.

Right: a 5e battlemaster is more powerful by design, so a direct port of Crack the Shell might be underwhelming. Like I said, the 5e battlemaster might be different, but it's definitely not weaker.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am comparing the two going nova.

OK, that makes more sense, as far as that goes...

That is both more powerful and more flexible than using crack the shell.

The offensive power thing is almost a given: 5e emphasizes offensive power across the board to facilitate faster combats.

Considering 'flexibility' in terms of a Nova strikes me as rather odd, but, pursuing that, you'd also have to consider what the 5th level 4e fighter could do with /both/ his dailies (or a combo of encounters & dailies), since he could action point and blow them both, plus any move or minor-action exploit he might use.

Over the course of many combats, and at the level of character build, a 4e fighter might have the edge on versatility, having more powers, but I'd need to see some evidence for that...I'm not sure that it's true out of the gate.

It's simple numbers. The 1st level 5e fighter has no maneuvers. The 1st level 4e fighter had four: two at-will, an encounter and a daily. At 3rd, the Battlemaster has 3 maneuvers, chosen from a list 18 that are all third-level-appropriate. By 10th, the Battlemaster has 6 maneuvers and a few CS dice to power them. By 10th, the 4e fighter had two at-wills, 3 encounters, 3 dailies and 2 utilities, each different, chosen from among hundreds (well, a hundred or so, since exploits aren't all essentially '3rd level,' there are many higher-level exploits he couldn't have chosen, yet).

To make matters worse, CS dice are between dailies and encounters in availability, because it's much harder to squeeze in a full-hour 'short' rest than a 5-min one.

Now, IIRC, at 10th level, a 4e fighter could bust out an alpha-strike combo, like Action Point, C&GI + Thicket of Blades + Reaper's Stance, and really do the whole Inigo Montoya thing of 'pulling' enemies to him, and mowing through them with ease. Mechanically, that'd be a 1w attack and 3w attack, plus 1w auto-damage (each turn for the rest of the encounter), each against up to 8 enemies up to 3 squares away from the fighter. Any who survive to actually take their turns are, of course, marked, as well, and each would have to take an AO if they wanted to try to get away from the fighter, having their movement spoiled if it hit.

The 5e fighter's multi-attacking + Action Surge works very well on single targets, but it quickly loses out when spread among multiple foes, it just can't compare to AEs in that kind of scenario. The 5e fighter only had a few 'close' AEs, but they could be spectacular.

Now, you might be able to come up with some use of Action Surge and all your CS dice to rival that kind of performance (maybe), but that leaves you with nothing but second wind until your next hour-long rest, while the 4e fighter still would have had two encounters, a daily, and his utilities (and two at wills, of course, and the Reaper's Stance while he remained conscious) left to keep the rest of the fight interesting.

Like I said, the 5e battlemaster might be different, but it's definitely not weaker.

No argument, here. Much less versatile when it comes to builds (relative to 3.x/PF), less varied and interesting in play (relative to 4e), but not lacking in raw power (even when compared to 2e).

You could even concede all 5e characters some within-the-turn flexibility in combat in terms of being able to move-attack-move by default, instead of needing a feat (3.5) or powers to do so. That's a nice feature of 5e's generally looser rules and simplified action economy.

The 400 possible powers are mostly irrelevant - I'm talking about how the fighter operates at the table, not about theorycrafting builds.

"Theorycrafting" is just a word forumite's pull out when they know the numbers are against them. ;P I mean, there are over 350 spells in the PH1, would it be irrelevant to casters if we removed all but a dozen of them? And all those that remained were 1st level?

Seriously, though, the breadth of choice and build /does/ very much affect how fighters play at the table.

A 5e battlemaster or 3e feat-based fighter faces an issue with most of their choices being designed for when they are first presented with them. The 3e fighter has some feat chains that culminate in feats that area essentially 4th or 6th level abilities, since that's the earliest they can get them. The 5e Battlemaster's maneuvers, OTOH, are all essentially 3rd-level abilities, even if he doesn't get to pick some of them until high levels. Not only that, but the obvious thing to do is pick the best abilities, first, so those latter picks are much more marginal, making advancement less meaningful. That does affect how you play at the table, in that you're very likely to play them about the same at 10th or 13th or higher level as you did back at 3rd (Battlemaster) or 6th or 8th (3.5 fighter). It also means characters are going to look pretty similar in play. Most battlemasters are going to have the top 3 best maneuvers, and tend to use them the same way, including 'spamming' the same one.

A 4e character (fighter or most others but the Wizard, really), OTOH, chose powers one at time as they leveled that were appropriate to the level at which they're gained, so each was something they could not have simply taken before. They also couldn't trade powers overnight or on the fly, so any difference in power choices differentiated characters of the same class, and they can't fall into a rut of 'spamming' the same power until they're out of resources.