D&D 5E The "more complex" fighter: What are you looking for?

[Tony Vargas]

This was a topic that was covered in depth on the WotC boards during the playtest. Obviously, it did no good, since the only 'complex' fighter in 5e cast spells. In fact, all 5e classes use spells in one way or another in one or more sub-classes. In that sense, 5e is prettymuch a total loss for anyone wanting a more engaging character that does not, in fact, cast spells. There's nothing like the 3.5 fighter or Warblade nor any of the 4e 'martial' classes in 5e.

Even the terminology - 'more complex' - is problematic. Complexity isn't a desirable quality for a class to have, yet all 5e classes have quite a lot of it - again, mostly from their use of spells - because there is a corresponding gain for which complexity is the price. A simple class can't have many options, be terribly customizable, or have many choices in play. Such classes, in essence, can't be balanced, because they're always inferior to more choice-rich classes that do pay the price in greater complexity. Even if you pump up their numbers until they're downright broken, simplistic classes still come out behind 'Tier 5' in 3.x parlance. They're just too lacking in choice.

Any worthwhile non-casting 'complex fighter' would eclipse the existing sub-classes. The Battlemaster, though only slightly 'complex' in contrast to the simplistic Champion comes pretty close to eclipsing that archetype.

Really, though, that's no reason not to produce one - or several better-balanced 'martial' classes.

They'd have emulate the customizeability of the 3.x fighter and the range and depth of options of the Bo9S and 4e martial classes. 5e provides plenty of 'design space' to do so.



But for now we the closest thing we have to a 'complex fighter' is the EK, and it's complex only because it's a spellcaster.
It's not really a fighter at all, it's a 'Gish.'

As is, fighters are one trick ponues, but that trick is the highest damage in the game, with a solid side of toughness. So they arn't exactly lacking

Solidly 'Tier 4,' then. ;P

 

[Azurewraith]

This was a topic that was covered in depth on the WotC boards during the playtest. Obviously, it did not good, since the only 'complex' fighter in 5e cast spells. In fact, all 5e classes use spells in one way or another.

This is 5es greatest problem surprised I didn't think of it in the what 5e got wrong thread. To much magic way to much magic! I mean martials really have been made the minority here there's what 2fighter subclasses with no spells 2rogues 1monk did I miss any?

Book of 9 swords for 5e!

 

[Mouseferatu]

They'd have emulate the customizeability of the 3.x fighter and the range and depth of options of the Bo9S and 4e martial classes. 5e provides plenty of 'design space' to do so.

You've said this before, but I'm looking for specifics. What specifically do they do that you can't do in 5E?

I admit I don't know every power in Bo9S. But flipping through it, a whole lot of them seem to be combinations of things you can already do in 5E. Blinding, granting allies bonuses to attack, pushing/pulling/moving, disarming... You can already do all of that.

Ability damage? Doesn't exist in 5E. Touch attacks? Don't exist, and there are already maneuvers that make it easier to hit. Defensive stances? There are maneuvers that allow you to parry, and fighting styles that increase your AC. Area attacks with thrown weapons? 5E allows multiple attacks at higher levels without 3E's decreasing iterative bonuses, and the ranger already has whirlwind or "rain of arrow" style attacks (though I admit getting those as a fighter would be cool).

Marking? Optional DMG rule. Granting allies temp HP, or pinning down an opponent with opportunity attacks? Feats.

And so forth.

I realize I may sound challenging. As I said, that's not my intent. I'm just really trying to get a sense of what people want--specifically--that they can't already get.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The catch with many powers or complexity options is that they actually remove options. If there's a fighter with a power that lets them throw a grappled enemy then that means you shouldn't be able to do so without the power. That's removed from the potential toolbox.
Instead, the fighter just has to be better at doing things already in the rules. But in a rules light system this is hard, as those options are less codified. At best you let them do fancy stuff *and* attack, implying that the fancy stuff can be done in place of an attack or as an action.

A complex 5e fight should be built off the framework of the eldritch knight, replacing cantrips with at-will powers and maybe some lesser powers that recharge on a short rest. (Almost a 1/3rd warlock in terms of balance.) That would give some interesting choices each round, and a variety of powers. (Honestly though... I don't see that playing much different than the battle master.)

Another option could also be some abilities that modify Action Surge, making that more diverse and giving new actions that can be used. Super maneuvers that are the equivalent of four attacks.

That gives a decent mechanical and balance framework to work with. But you'd still need to think of powers AND a story hook with flavour beyond "this is a variant fighter; they hit stuff."

Yeah I firmly believe the trick to interesting improvised combat is you allow the character to hit and do damage as normal PLUS an improvised effect. Otherwise players will just go the direct route and damage damage damage because it cant really go wrong and is often the most efficient means to win. The hard part, if you want to encourage more options/interesting play, is deciding whether you want to cap the number of improvised actions in some fashion, or allow them (or at least attempts to do them) at will. DCC's Might Deeds went with at-will attempts.

 

[Psikerlord#]

This is 5es greatest problem surprised I didn't think of it in the what 5e got wrong thread. To much magic way to much magic! I mean martials really have been made the minority here there's what 2fighter subclasses with no spells 2rogues 1monk did I miss any?

Book of 9 swords for 5e!

I agree one of the mistakes of 5e is far too much magic spread through the classes.

edit: and cantrips (in hindsight, having played a lot of 5e) also create the "too much magic" feel for me

 

[Zardnaar]

Add power type feats to the game could do it replicating things from 4E or Star Wars Saga force powers would do it IMHO. Some effects could be outright magical or psionic in nature.

Otherwise you would have to make a new class as the BM is already one of the best fighters and making a better version of that is just blatant power creep.

 

[Li Shenron]

1) Not already covered by BM maneuvers, and

2) Not already covered by the additional combat options in the DMG, and

3) Not skill-monkey-related, and

4) Not more appropriately modeled via the magic/spell system?

What are some examples of what you're actually looking for?

The only thing I can think about, is some mutually-exclusive bonus/penalty tradeoffs (I think you could call these stances as you mentioned). Mutually-exclusive in the sense that only one can be "active" at a certain time, to keep everything under control.

An example is the Barbarian's reckless attacks ability: you get a boost on something but pay a price for it on something else while active*

Despite this being about complicating the fighter, I would really not want it to involve anything more than choosing if you want this active or not (or which one to be active, if you have multiple options). No actions to activate/maintain/deactivate that only slow the game down and interact with action economy in ways that always leave out loopholes.

*The key difficulty is to design a reasonable tradeoff. It should not be so that the penalty is a dump, which means that some PCs can be built so as it's irrelevant and thus should always have the bonus active (if that's the case, just design a feat which gives you the bonus and no penalty). But it should indeed be so that given the right circumstances the bonus is well worth the penalty.

 

[Krachek]

I dont see needs to a more ´complex' fighter.
The battle master + MC in bard, or rogue, ranger, barbarian or even monk can add a lot of complexity to a character.
As always people want a class that do it all! Damage, control, skill, resilience, and complexity and simplicity at the same time.

 

[Lackhand]

You say that like it's a bad thing!

The way we resolve bless often involves the cleric handing the d4 to the beneficiary (at least the first couple of times, before they remember). Thereafter, they're rolling damage already, the fighter just pipes up to remind them.

The DM making the saving throws is a problem, it's true

 

[Spookykid]

Not what you want to hear but most things are already in game, redo the battlemaster. Make it more like a spell system with levels for different manuvers and slots to use. Take the damage bonus out of the really cool ones at low levels. Make a trip a trip and not a damage boost, same for all the others. Then you could add some abilities found in other classes like reckless attack or some of the ranger abilities.