D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[corwyn77]

ONE encounter per day? That's something I've never seen.

And yes, 6-8 encounters before a long rest has been pretty typical in the WOTC adventures I've played (which is many of them).

Most of my games tend to be one or two fights per day. But then, I don't often run D&D, and when I do they aren't usually dungeon crawls.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ahhh, but your post isn't about obscure weapons. You're post is about screwing people that take feats you don't like. Just don't allow the feats or be up front with them that you don't get a magic greatsword because you took GWM, now if you be a good little boy and don't take that feat then I will let you have a magic greatsword (or battle axe). And if you write you are own adventure and build your own encounters build them for the players. And there is no difference in a game of giving someone a +1 guisarme voulge than a +1 Greatsword in 2E. Even in 5E I'm not going to screw a player for taking a feat. Build better encounters for your players if you write your own. That should be easy if you know how to write your own adventures.

Everything you are saying is an egregious example of being a horrible DM. The DM isn't supposed to add or subtract weapons based on their personal preference or how a particular character is built. The DM is supposed to present the world honestly and with integrity, and if it makes sense for there to be a +1 greatsword, then it will be there. The contents of that lost tomb were determined decades (if not centuries) before the PC was ever born.

If you're going to cheat in favor of your players by including schroedinger's magic weapons, then there's no point in even playing the game.

 

[Quickleaf]

This is pretty much my view as well. The fighter/warrior archetype is probably the most broad in fantasy literature and media. Therefore, the fighter class has to have an option that is more generic with additional features that add customization in order to emulate all of these archetypes as much as possible. By giving two additional feats, WoTC did a great job doing this. I have made stealthy fighters, front line defenders, and quasi-paladins all without giving up anything (by using feats that all the other classes got). To me, that is successful design. The more hard baked abilities you put in a class, the less customization you have.

It does. Every other class still gets backgrounds and feats. The fighter just gets more feats, the reason being what I just described above.

I actually think [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] proposed a really nice solution – something I'd be excited to see in a reworked fighter class (akin to what they've done for the ranger):

Introduce two decision points into the fighter. The first (not a sub-class) is about going complex (e.g. using maneuvers akin to a Battle Master) or simple (e.g. static bonuses akin to Champion). The second choice (sub-class) is about the narrative, leaning more on exploration/interaction with narrative-reinforcing fighting mechanics. And in so doing, introduce more unique abilities (that other classes don't have & don't eclipse) as part of the sub-classes.

And then give the fighter (and the rogue while we're at it), a bunch of subclasses like the cleric & wizard get. On the conceit that the "CORE FOUR" classes are umbrellas for a broader range of character concepts, and thus should have 6-9 subclasses each.

To me, that would be really attractive design for the fighter. It would preserve the customization options without short-thrifting the narrative springboard.

EDIT: So in my revised PHB model, the "CORE FOUR" and their sub-classes might be...

Cleric (8): Death, Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, War
Fighter (8): Borderlands Guard, Cavalier, Eldritch Knight, Gladiator, Monster Slayer, Veteran, Warlord, ?
Rogue (8): Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Thief, ?, ?, ?
Wizard (8): Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Necromancy, Transmutation, "Generalist"

 

[dco]

Fighting Style: Paladin and Rangers get this too, it is not unique and the only scale fighters will see from it is Riposting Battlemasters and their 3rd attack, weak.

Second Wind: 1d10 + Fighter level respective of HP totals and how hard a difficult CR monster can hit you is nothing compared to Lay on Hands or the monk ability. Should be a straight 3x Fighter level.

Action Surge. It's for one round per rest until 17th level, that's pretty static.

Feats. Everyone has access.

Indomitable. Paladin aura and monk save ability are MILES better. Should be like Legendary Resistance where you choose to "auto-save" if you fail.

Extra Attack: All Fighter Extra attacks come too late, they should get theirs first (4th as opposed to 5th, and 9th as opposed to 11th).

Nothing a Fighter has scales as well as Paladins, Barbarians, or Monks.

Lets pick the paladin and apply the same judgement:
- Divine sense: Doesn't scale.
- Lay on hands: Good utility but not very good at low levels and while you are in combat. With 2-3 short rests second wind can be better if applied in combat.
- Fighting style: Not unique.
- Spellcasting: Good but not unique.
- Divine smite: Good, but requires spells.
- Extra attack: Not unique.
- Aura of protection: Really good, only scales with CHA.
- Aura of courage: Good, soesn't scale.
- Improved divine smite: Worse than an extra attack.
- Cleansing touch: Interesting ability, doesn't scale, give me a feat.
- Lvl 9, 13, 17 only gains 2 or 1 spell slot.
- 4 subclass features: The fighter gets 5 before the paladin gets 4.

 

[LapBandit]

Lets pick the paladin and apply the same judgement:
- Divine sense: Doesn't scale.
- Lay on hands: Good utility but not very good at low levels and while you are in combat. With 2-3 short rests second wind can be better if applied in combat.
- Fighting style: Not unique.
- Spellcasting: Good but not unique.
- Divine smite: Good, but requires spells.
- Extra attack: Not unique.
- Aura of protection: Really good, only scales with CHA.
- Aura of courage: Good, soesn't scale.
- Improved divine smite: Worse than an extra attack.
- Cleansing touch: Interesting ability, doesn't scale, give me a feat.
- Lvl 9, 13, 17 only gains 2 or 1 spell slot.
- 4 subclass features: The fighter gets 5 before the paladin gets 4.

Paladin spellcasting is actuall very unique in the spell list they get and the power they get from spells being a martial + half/caster.
Divine smite scales with spell slots and levels.
Aura of Protection and Courage are extremely potent from the first to the last moment you get them.
Lay on Hands is: 5 x Paladin level, and you could empty it as an action, anything that scales with level, and at 5X no less is incredible.

I'm not saying the Fighter has to change much, give him the same abilities, just more and earlier. Make him the unquestioned master of physical combat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Introduce two decision points into the fighter. The first (not a sub-class) is about going complex (e.g. using maneuvers akin to a Battle Master) or simple (e.g. static bonuses akin to Champion). The second choice (sub-class) is about the narrative, leaning more on exploration/interaction with narrative-reinforcing fighting mechanics. And in so doing, introduce more unique abilities (that other classes don't have & don't eclipse) as part of the sub-classes.

And then give the fighter (and the rogue while we're at it), a bunch of subclasses like the cleric & wizard get. On the conceit that the "CORE FOUR" classes are umbrellas for a broader range of character concepts, and thus should have 6-9 subclasses each.

What would 6-9 fighter sub-classes look like, if none of them could include specific maneuvers since they had to maintain compatibility with the non-maneuver fighter option?

 

[Tony Vargas]

One can think of plenty of legendary swords from myth and legends

Most people would have trouble coming up with a third after Excalibur and Durendal.

Can't think of to many famous Polearms

Cuchulain's Gae Bolga was a spear.

A Champion... leads an army? No...

No. We all know what that'd be... ;P

champions a cause? No...

Yes. Fights on behalf of another. A Champion could fight for king or country or a liege lord or to defend those not strong enough to fight for themselves, or whatever. Ties in strongly with the 5e idea of Bonds, when you think about it.
Champion is a very evocative name, the sub-class just gives you very little support for it. The Paladin is more of a Champion than the Champion.

A Battle Master... um... fights really well? No, wait, that's the fighter...

The Battlemaster is an 85-ton 'mech armed with a PPC and various lesser weapons.

 

[Quickleaf]

What would 6-9 fighter sub-classes look like, if none of them could include specific maneuvers since they had to maintain compatibility with the non-maneuver fighter option?

I think that's a really good question.

I can offer my answer: The Warrior. While the core of the class I'm struggling to design in a way that doesn't take up so much space, the sub-classses are better conceived.

But that's just my take. Ultimately, I think it's the kind of question that should have been asked early on in the design process (you know, when Mike Mearls went back in time and said "No! Just don't do it!" to himself), or potentially could be asked in a hypothetical redesign of the fighter (akin to what they've done for the ranger).

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes. Fights on behalf of a cause or person. A Champion could fight for king or country or a liege lord or on behalf of those not strong enough to fight for themselves, or whatever, ties strongly in with the 5e idea of Bonds, when you think about it. Champion is a very evocative name, the sub-class just gives you very little support for it. The Paladin is more of a Champion than the Champion.

Absolutely. That would have been / would be a great direction to go with the Champion sub-class!

 

[Zardnaar]

Ahhh, but your post isn't about obscure weapons. You're post is about screwing people that take feats you don't like. Just don't allow the feats or be up front with them that you don't get a magic greatsword because you took GWM, now if you be a good little boy and don't take that feat then I will let you have a magic greatsword (or battle axe).

No they can have it if they find it. For example if I run Princes of the Apocalypse they get what equipment is in princes of the apocalypse. Lost Mines of Phandelver has a magic longbow in it IIRC so if you have the Sharpshooter feat .

For example we have a level 10 Hunter Ranger atm with the Sharpshooter feat. He doesn't have a magic bow yet but he does have some magic arrows and a magical rapier IRC. Not ideal perhaps but he is far from useless if he comes across something immune to non magical weapons.