D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Quickleaf]

Just to say I love this way of thinking the archetypes. It reminds me of the Numenera/Cypher system's way of creating characters with a Descriptor (quality)+Type(broad class group)+Focus(Speciality).

I'll give it a try (I'm still in the camp that feels like the figher is somewhat lacking in flavor, while still being a strong class).

The CHAMPION is a DRIVEN WARRIOR who PRESSES THE ATTACK RELENTLESSLY.
The BATTLEMASTER is a CLEVER WARRIOR who FIGHTS WITH PANACHE.

OK, to distill yours to the format of [noun] [verb]...

The Champion presses the attack relentlessly.
The Battle Master cleverly fights with panache.

I'm assuming you can see how ambiguous and "weaker" (in terms of identity) those phrases are compared to: The Thief breaks in and steals stuff.

While your statements are objectively true, they are limited to how this character fights. IF I had described the Thief in that way, I might have said: The Thief sneak attacks enemies from behind.

Again, true, but it doesn't capture the concept of the Thief in the overarching narrative of the game. Instead it pigeonholes its definition to how the character fights.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Wow you penalize players for taking feats and making builds you don't like. I write my own adventures. But even back in 1E/2E days if a player took weapon specialization in Guisarme Voulge then I put a magic weapon of that type in there. Feats are optional if you don't want players using them then don't have them in there. I'd say you are being a jerk DM and not play in your game. There are lots of things I don't like about 5E (firing into melee, pre 3.0 had it right), but I don't take it out on my players.

 

[S'mon]

I just wish classes were balanced around a single encounter day, not this ridiculous 6-8 encounter notion (which doesn't even appear in WoTC adventures AFAICS).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wow you penalize players for taking feats and making builds you don't like. I write my own adventures. But even back in 1E/2E days if a player took weapon specialization in Guisarme Voulge then I put a magic weapon of that type in there. Feats are optional if you don't want players using them then don't have them in there. I'd say you are being a jerk DM and not play in your game. There are lots of things I don't like about 5E (firing into melee, pre 3.0 had it right), but I don't take it out on my players.

Wow, you'd intentionally pander to your players and sacrifice the integrity of the setting for everyone by blatantly including obscure magic weapons that they happened to specialize in? I'd say you are being a bad DM and not play in your game. There are are lots of things I don't like about 5E, but I don't take it out on my players.

 

[Li Shenron]

The thing is, they could have given them more identity.

It's the flaw in the fighter subclasses: their identity was based solely on mechanics rather than story or narrative.

One of the key concept of 5e design was to provide options for different playstyles, also with reference to "preferred editions playstyles". Low complexity characters in the style of old BD&D/AD&D editions, as well as high complexity characters in the 3e/4e style were the target.

More ambitiously, the purpose was to allow freedom for individual players, so not just rules optional modules that increase complexity for everyone at the table.

All this was supposed to be independent on the narrative, for instance ending the traditional ogreshit of "Fighters should be simple, Wizards should be complex", simply because there are TONS of beginner players who want to play a spellcaster, but also many experienced players who might be interested in a complex Fighter.

If WotC has failed to deliver, is only in the fact that they stopped at the Fighter, which is really the only class which clearly offers a low-complexity and a high-complexity archetype.

So yes, the Champion and Battlemaster archetypes are supposed to differentiate mostly on mechanics, pretty much to avoid significant narrative discrimination.

But that said, the two archetypes are not completely without narrative. The Champion is the kind of fighter that never strays off the main path of being effective, it's the warrior that keeps fighting in the same way, accumulating experience and efficiency: if anything, it should have been called the Veteran (lit. the "aged") which simply goes through the motion of one war or battle after the other, honing his skills and focusing on getting things done quickly, like a boxer who learns 3 different punches, and after that it's just gym and sparring over and over. Instead, the Battlemaster is the scholar that keeps looking for alternatives to maximize flexibility and adaptivity, like a martial artist who keeps adding new techniques to her repertoire.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wow, you'd intentionally pander to your players and sacrifice the integrity of the setting for everyone by blatantly including obscure magic weapons that they happened to specialize in? I'd say you are being a bad DM and not play in your game. There are are lots of things I don't like about 5E, but I don't take it out on my players.

This. Also I got sick of catering to powergamers in 3E.

If you pick a "powerful" option you might get a magic weapon but don't expect it.

I'm actually finding my players and even new players want a bit more realism and grittyness in the game. They actually want me to punish them for bad life choices as a few of them have played in groups where they have Barbarians running around with +2 and +3 great weapons where the exhaustion rules are conveniently over looked and the games get out of hand fast as the DMs pander to them (mostly inexperienced ones).

One can think of plenty of legendary swords from myth and legends or D&D. Can't think of to many famous Polearms or handcrossbows.

 

[dco]

Let's play a little. How do you complete these "power sentences" capturing the essence of the subclass...?

E.g. A Thief breaks in and steals stuff.

A Champion _____________ .

A Battle Master ____________ .

The battlemaster controls the battlefield and knows his enemies.
The Champion is a master of his weapons and a tough motherfu***.
And other people will find other essences for the classes. Really, there is no problem.

 

[Zardnaar]

The battlemaster controls the battlefield.
The Champion is a master of his weapons and a tough motherfu***.
And other people will find other essences for the class.

Its because you have read the PHB though. I think its more for new players or in 4E and 3E with some of the PrCs and class names were WTF.

Whats a seeker, warden, Dragon Disciple for the uninitiated for example? A fighter, assassin, wizard means something even if you have never played D&D before. What is a Duskblade?

 

[Zardnaar]

I just wish classes were balanced around a single encounter day, not this ridiculous 6-8 encounter notion (which doesn't even appear in WoTC adventures AFAICS).

THis +1, to be honest I preferred 3E 4 encounters expectation. I often don't have time to cram in 6-8 encounters per session and I do not like splitting the encounters over multiple sessions where you might have 1-5 weeks between sessions. PCs pick a fight with some NPCs or get a wandering monster. I'm expected to add in another 5-7 encounter to get to the 6-8 expected encounters. That is just moronic and as you said the WotC adventures do not follow this concept.

Its alright for dungeon hacks, just stupid for hexcrawls and urban adventures.

 

[Derren]

The battlemaster controls the battlefield and knows his enemies.
The Champion is a master of his weapons and a tough motherfu***.
And other people will find other essences for the classes. Really, there is no problem.

And that differentiates them from other classes how?
Everyone us good at fighting, why di you need a class that soecializes in it when the actual gain is minimal.