D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[Tony Vargas]

I still don't see anything wrong with the current ruleset, nor anything wrong with the fighter as is.

Neither do I. The ruleset is great, it avoids some of the worst pitfalls of 3.x, for instance, and the fighter is an awesome rendition of the 2e fighter, all the DPR, more options than just TWFing & Archery (OK, it's lacking in the saving throw department - nobody's perfect).

But, it really doesn't have the kind of class we were talking about - even though it has lots of design space available for one... or three.

 

[MwaO]

I haven't checked the details of this analysis, but it sounds valid. The fact that the analysis is nontrivial proves my point--the 5E fighter has interesting decisions to make.

To do the analysis once is non-trivial, but this analysis ends up almost the same way every time. Note that your GWM is better than your basic attack option without optimizing to-hit. Optimize number of attacks and to-hit and damage quickly skyrockets. It wouldn't be surprising to be able to build a Fighter 11 who expects to defeat a Fire Giant in 2 rounds by themselves. Battlemaster+Precision Attack+Polearm Master+Great Weapon Master means you basically hit the Fire Giant 62.5% of the time, do 4 attacks a round, and average .625*7*20 damage for about 87 damage on round 1. Have a friend with the same basic idea and there's a dead Fire Giant.

Note what I'm saying here about my Battlemaster idea - I can't burn all my points for precision attack and someone thinks I'm potentially breaking it by preventing the one really broken application...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To do the analysis once is non-trivial, but this analysis ends up almost the same way every time. Note that your GWM is better than your basic attack option without optimizing to-hit. Optimize number of attacks and to-hit and damage quickly skyrockets. It wouldn't be surprising to be able to build a Fighter 11 who expects to defeat a Fire Giant in 2 rounds by themselves. Battlemaster+Precision Attack+Polearm Master+Great Weapon Master means you basically hit the Fire Giant 62.5% of the time, do 4 attacks a round, and average .625*7*20 damage for about 87 damage on round 1. Have a friend with the same basic idea and there's a dead Fire Giant.

Note what I'm saying here about my Battlemaster idea - I can't burn all my points for precision attack and someone thinks I'm potentially breaking it by preventing the one really broken application...

"...ends up almost the same way every time." I'm quite skeptical of that. Fire Giants are exceptional when it comes to Athletics, and give different results than would a Frost Giant or a Beholder. Moreover, the tactical situation is not static. If the Warlock has the Fire Giant Hexed, the analysis changes. If the Fire Giant has been scared by a Menacing Strike, the analysis changes. If instead of a Fire Giant it's a group of three Drow Warriors, the analysis changes. If you're under time pressure to stop the giant before he can sound the alarm, or before he can run away, the analysis changes.

 

[MwaO]

"...ends up almost the same way every time." I'm quite skeptical of that. Fire Giants are exceptional when it comes to Athletics, and give different results than would a Frost Giant or a Beholder. Moreover, the tactical situation is not static. If the Warlock has the Fire Giant Hexed, the analysis changes. If the Fire Giant has been scared by a Menacing Strike, the analysis changes. If instead of a Fire Giant it's a group of three Drow Warriors, the analysis changes. If you're under time pressure to stop the giant before he can sound the alarm, or before he can run away, the analysis changes.

You'd think, but the basic problem is that Precision Attack at 11th is +1d10, making -5/+10 damage feats very, very, very viable for them. When you typically do 10 points of damage without the -5/+10 and then 20 damage with the -5/+10, it can start to be more apparent just how dangerous the GWM/Sharpshooter feats are, especially the Sharpshooter one with Crossbow Expert+Action Surge - hit an average of 5 times for 20 points of damage as an example tends to rewrite expectations...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You'd think, but the basic problem is that Precision Attack at 11th is +1d10, making -5/+10 damage feats very, very, very viable for them. When you typically do 10 points of damage without the -5/+10 and then 20 damage with the -5/+10, it can start to be more apparent just how dangerous the GWM/Sharpshooter feats are, especially the Sharpshooter one with Crossbow Expert+Action Surge - hit an average of 5 times for 20 points of damage as an example tends to rewrite expectations...

Now you're changing the subject from "optimal strategy for the fighter" to a much narrower question, "Is it better to GWM or not when I've got superiority dice to burning a hole in my pocket?" Even that question isn't simple to analyze because superiority dice can be spent in multiple ways including Menacing Strike and Trip Attack, but it's a far cry from an analysis of the opportunity cost to power attacking vs. Disarming vs. Dodging vs. Disengaging behind cover vs. Hiding vs. Grappling vs. Pushing, and to whom, in the context of a full encounter.

For example, in the Fire Giant's case, it's not immediately obvious whether the GWM Polearm Master Battlemaster is better off spending all of his dice to Precise Strike as you suggest, or spending at least some of them on Menacing Strike to impose disadvantage. And is it really necessary to Action Surge, or can that be saved for an emergency?

 

[Andor]

A more interesting martial class, with more and more unique options would be a great addition to the game, opening up modes of play that aren't currently available, including some that were available in 3.5 and 4e, which is in keeping with 5e's goal of being for fans of all prior editions.

If the argument had been made instead that spellcasters have even more options than fighters do, I wouldn't try to debunk that argument, I'd agree with it! It's why Eldritch Knight is clearly the best kind of fighter IMO, and why Paladin/Sorcerers are superior to Paladins. In my subjective opinion.

But that isn't the argument I was responding to.

There is a current running through this behind the scenes, which has been with us for as long as D&D has existed. The magic as technology debate.

Now magic, in fantasy literature, was originally the province of bad guys, or at least dubious ones. In pulp fiction the heroes were bronzed, strapping lads, with lightning reflexes and iron wills who could barely tolerate the existence of thin, pasty, "lab rat" sorcerers with their yellowed eyes and fuming potions. So much so that Micheal Moorcock deliberately inverted the cliche to give us Elric of Melniboné as a hero who was a skinny, albino, sorcerer who needed drugs to be strong. And early D&D was strongly informed by these pulp tropes, so much so that the original alignment system was Law vs Chaos (with Neutral in the middle), the same axis of conflict that drove Moorcocks Eternal Champion books.

OTOH in a lot of other fantasy genres, and increasingly so in modern fantasy, magic loses it's lustre of evil. It may be commonplace like in the Lord of the Rings (where low level magic was everywhere but combat magic was exceedingly rare), or vanishingly rare like in the Belgariad where only a handful of people ever had access to it, but it does not taint or demean the possessor of it (with rare and specific exceptions, like the One Ring, which was created for that purpose.) A magician in these worlds does not pay for his powers with his soul, or lose his mind to the slow corrosion of madness. He simply has more and better options, or power than a mundane man, just as a man with a sword has more options in a fight than a man without. Magic is technology.

And D&D is also informed by these stories. And it has leaned more and more strongly in that direction over the years. It is a fantasy game after all, and who hasn't fantasized of magical powers? Of flight, and invisibility, shapeshifting and reading minds.

So there has been tension between the use of magic as a moral device where magic is the quick, easy and treacherous path to power ala the Dark side, and magic as wish fullfilment or alternate physics.

And there has also been the question of the role of the rules in a roleplaying game. Are they there to describe the world, and allow simulation of the conflicts within it? Provide narrative elements for storytelling withing the fiction of the game? Provide balanced and interesting puzzles for players to solve? The different editions of the game have given very different priorities to these different aspects of playing, just have different players have distinct preferences.

Now, in the current edition of D&D there in nothing inherently sinister about magic (with the probable exception of Warlocks), so it falls into the Magic as Technology camp of world building. The trouble is you now have conflict between the different goals of rule design, and the differing desires of the players. For some people, informed by those early tropes or just a desire to play the under dog, will always want to play the hero who succeeds without magic. However if the rules are set up to make the "rules as physics" camp happy then a mundane character is at multiple disadvantages to the magic user. Because magic is a tool, and tools both provide more options, and multiply power to allow more to be accomplished with less effort. So really, a spellless fighter makes as much sense as someone who wants to serve in the modern military as a soldier without using technology. A man with a gun is more dangerous than a man without one. Tools are options, and the magicless man has elected to leave his toolbelt at home.

The other camps of rule design don't care. They want the tools to tell the story they want to tell, or they want all characters to have equivalent tools to use to solve the (tactical) puzzles of the game without being hindered by the "fluff".

The rules as physics aspect of game design was the one that 4e left out in the rain, and so 5e had to bring it back into the mix, which it has, as a consequence of which the mundane does have fewer options than a magic wielder. I think 5e strikes a pretty good balance between the different goals of design and play, but then I'm a rules as physics guy so I'm biased.

 

[Uchawi]

There where some corner cases where 4E was bending the laws of believability or physics in the game like the fighter power 'come and get it'. But the benefit of 4E is you could remove that one offending power. 5E abandoned that concept except for the Battlemaster, and the choices for the class, even when you exclude believability or mind bending physics from 4E leaves a lot to be desired. So 5E failed big time on flexibility of choice or options for martials classes, unless of course you are a hybrid martial character with magic ability.

 

[Savevsdeath]

If it's like an alarm clock, then what makes the warlord's voice any different than the rogue or wizard shouting at them? Noise is noise, no?

Have you ever had the pleasure of seeing a drill servant in action? Have you never, ever met a coach who could motivate people past their limits, make them ignore pain and fight/play on? Have you never even seen a movie with such a n individual portrayed as a character?

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Have you ever had the pleasure of seeing a drill servant in action? Have you never, ever met a coach who could motivate people past their limits, make them ignore pain and fight/play on? Have you never even seen a movie with such a n individual portrayed as a character?

Not one that can "revive" someone who is already completely unconscious due to physical injury? If it were healing through allowing the expenditure of hit dice or some kind of natural reserve, then I could see it. Doing that while already completely down and out just doesn't jive with me.

It's a personal thing, so I promise there's no need to debate about it for a 100 more pages.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it's like an alarm clock, then what makes the warlord's voice any different than the rogue or wizard shouting at them? Noise is noise, no?

Alarm clocks just illustrate that unconscious <> deaf in an amusing, obvious way. There's also a belief that even coma patients can hear what's being said around the, cases of people under heavy sedation doing so, and so forth.

Dropped to 0 doesn't equal brain-dead, either. The character's sub-conscious is still there, for instance.

So the real difference isn't the Warlord's voice, it's the ally's reaction to that voice, even if only a sub-conscious emotional one.

If it were healing through allowing the expenditure of hit dice or some kind of natural reserve, then I could see it.

Which is analogous to how the Warlord worked in it's original incarnation. Healing resources were those of the ally being healed. HD work for that, though they are a very limited resource.