D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Mistwell]

This seems like 3e/PF thinking to me. IME PCs may or may not have access to Feats, at GM's option,

It was specific to Zard. If you're saying Zard thinks like a 3e/PF player, I am not disagreeing. But if you're saying my reply was a generalization as opposed to a critique of Zards comment about his setting, you're misreading it.

but NPCs never do, or almost never if the GM creates the occasional PC-class NPC and gives them Feats. But I have never seen an NPC with Feats in any campaign I've played or GM'd, or in any published material. So it makes no sense to assume that Feats are an established part of the world and that you have to modify legacy in-world item creation to take account of them.

It's intentionally not in published material because it's specifically an optional rule they don't support by default, so of course it's not in published material. But as for campaigns you've seen, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a world-building perspective. If your setting has feats for PCs, why wouldn't it have them for NPCs? What is it about PCs that let's them do more damage with a longbow or greatsword or glaive, than an NPC with the same strength/dex and class and weapon? Feats are not for the most part magical (or at least not the ones we're talking about) so what would be the in-world explanation for the identical bow wielded by the identical class and levels and ability scores doing 10 less damage with every hit?

 

[S'mon]

It was specific to Zard. If you're saying Zard thinks like a 3e/PF player, I am not disagreeing. But if you're saying my reply was a generalization as opposed to a critique of Zards comment about his setting, you're misreading it.



It's intentionally not in published material because it's specifically an optional rule they don't support by default, so of course it's not in published material. But as for campaigns you've seen, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a world-building perspective. If your setting has feats for PCs, why wouldn't it have them for NPCs? What is it about PCs that let's them do more damage with a longbow or greatsword or glaive, than an NPC with the same strength/dex and class and weapon? Feats are not for the most part magical (or at least not the ones we're talking about) so what would be the in-world explanation for the identical bow wielded by the identical class and levels and ability scores doing 10 less damage with every hit?

But NPCS don't have classes either - check the back of your MM. No classes and no feats.

5e NPCS generally do do similar damage to PCS of similar status, though like 4e they tend towards more hit points but lower DPR.

Edit: If you look at how powerful NPCs are built it's typically with extra attacks and bonus weapon dice. These aren't restricted by weapon; I can create a spearmaster NPC who does +2d6 with his 3 1-handed spear attacks and is a
match for a greatweapon fighter or polearm master PC.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But NPCS don't have classes either - check the back of your MM. No classes and no feats.

.

Some NPCs will have classes and levels. Says so right in the DMG in the section about NPCs. Really all depends on what you want the NPC for. It can be as simple as a brief description of who they are all the way up to having classes and levels. So while your statement is true of many NPCs, it's not true of all. Additionally, when an NPC like the Archmage has a CR instead of level (because a CR is more valuable to the DM than a level in planning), it pretty much is the exact same as an 18th level wizard. We can see this by the spellcasting ability description. And many of the other abilities of NPCs in the book replicate class features almost identically, which we can easily deduce what equivalent level they would be of that class. I really think the design of NPCs is to replicate classes but keep them simple. A DM running NPCs that have official levels in classes would be a nightmare to run. In fact, that's one of the top complaints I hear about 3e--DMing the game is a tremendous chore.

 

[dco]

That's the worst part of 5e for me, I liked how the NPCs and monsters were made in the 3e using the same framework.

 

[Corwin]

That's the worst part of 5e for me, I liked how the NPCs and monsters were made in the 3e using the same framework.

Do you mean using the same framework as player characters?

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's the worst part of 5e for me, I liked how the NPCs and monsters were made in the 3e using the same framework.

You can do the same thing in 5e if you want. They tell you straight up that you can create NPCs that have classes and levels.

 

[Gradine]

That's the worst part of 5e for me, I liked how the NPCs and monsters were made in the 3e using the same framework.

I, too, enjoyed spending an hour-and-a-half to design a monster that was going to die in three rounds of combat

 

[Zardnaar]

I, too, enjoyed spending an hour-and-a-half to design a monster that was going to die in three rounds of combat

Took about an hour to put the vampire template on a fresh Rogue. Don't really miss that.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] I've discussed this topic with you before, and from what I recall we have very different views about D&D and we agreed to disagree. You embrace the "empty calorie" "agnostically informative" subclass design / class-as-mechanics-not-identity philosophy. OTOH, I embrace the "recognizable archetype" subclass design / class-as-an-identity philosophy. So, with both of us understanding our fundamental division being what it is and unlikely to change...

This is coming across as you wanting more subclasses for the Fighter purely because some other classes get more: numbers for the sake of the numbers.
Not because you have specific concepts that require subclasses of the fighter to express that cannot be expressed with the current subclasses.

Either I've been unclear or you've misunderstood. The reason I think the "CORE FOUR" classes all merit more subclasses is because those classes – cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard – encompass the greatest breadth of concepts. There are many types of wizard, fighter, etc. Whereas paladin, ranger, monk, and so forth encompass a narrower band of concepts due to specific flavor in those classes. It's absolutely NOT numbers for the sake of blind numerical symmetry.

What IS important to me is the radically different priority the designers gave to "many subclasses for clerics & wizards." For example, I could easily imagine a wizard with just 3 subclasses (apologies for the rudimentary names): Blaster, Controller, and Scholar. That differentiates three major ways wizards are played mechanically. Looking back to AD&D and 3e and 4e (heck the entire history of D&D), specialization was essentially a sidebar, a completely optional thing. One design choice is to make specialization mandatorily baked into the class, and that's what they did, but it's pretty clear that's not the ONLY choice they had.

And when they did make that choice, they baked in plenty of flavor into how a Diviner differs from an Evoker, for example – their introductory flavor text hints at how a Diviner occupies a different societal role (vizier) than an Evoker (military). The Evoker's magic is construed toward fighting on a battlefield (Sculpt Spells), more on par with a warrior swinging a sword all day (Potent Cantrip), and as potentially dangerous to himself if pushing for maximum power (Overchannel). That is great example of a mechanics and narrative feedback loop. Compare the Diviner, whose magic is construed toward practicing in the long-term / taking long rests / making strange prognostications (Portent & Greater Portent), constantly drawing on minor divinations (Expert Divination), and seeing/understanding what isn't there or is concealed (The Third Eye).

It's not just a specialization, like some throw-away sidebar. It's a very pronounced part of the character's identity.

Can you give a quick run-down of the subclass mechanics of each of these, and why they are necessary as specific separate subclasses please?

Yes, I can. You'll find the details and flavor over at The Warrior, but I'm just giving design snapshots here. To get into my homebrew too deeply here would be to throw this thread off track, but happy to discuss it in its dedicated thread. The specific subclasses I'm still working on – for example I'm contemplating a Swashbuckler and a Gladiator but haven't tackled those yet, and may cut the Weaponmaster and fold it into the core class. WIP, not enough time.

But in brief...

The Borderlands Guard is a heavily exploration focused take on the warrior. It's inspired by the Dúnedain of LotR and other non-magical ranger types like those found in The Black Company.
The Cavalier is inspired by the AD&D class of the same name from Gary's original Unearthed Arcana.
The Destined Hero archetype is inspired by young adult literature and is designed to be both simpler and more responsive to player creativity than the other archetypes. It’s a good fit for kids! It also draws on aspects of the 4e fighter as a defender.
The Monster Slayer derives from a lot of video game archetypes ranging from Castlevania to Witcher. It also is inspired from modern fantasy roots of "man and his magic sword" stories like Elric of Melniboné, using an adaptation of legacy magic items (maybe that was 3e? can't remember edition).
The Veteran is an adaptation of the original fighting-man found in Chainmail and the “little brown books” of OD&D. Inspired by early fantasy wargaming, its efficacy can be seen equally pitted against hordes or against a lone dragon.
The Warlord combines aspects of the 4e Warlord and 3e Marshal with the OD&D/AD&D followers and strongholds style of play, offering a more holistic adaptation of the concept.
The Weaponmaster merges the 3e feat-based customizable fighter with an adaptation of the old Weapon Specialization rules from AD&D/BD&D. Still figuring the design of this one out.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior#ixzz4g8cyFQrT

I generally view the distinction between Champion and Battlemaster as being similar in concept to the distinction between Sorceror and Wizard: two different methods and mechanics for the same broad concept. That doesn't mean that I believe that Champion and Battlemaster need to be two separate classes however: They work as they are.

Maybe that's another place where we differ. See, I find the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard really weak because it's mainly mechanistic in nature. Yes, there's interesting flavor writing to the sorcerer but it barely plays out – IOW, the Sorcerer mechanics don't really evoke that flavor of "born of magic, magic in the veins" very well.

I understand that players who were really into D&D during the 3e and 4e eras are more comfortable with purely mechanically differentiated classes, and there is a whole group of people who want to shift D&D towards a class-less or class-lite system. But the downside of that it creates a barrier to entry for new gamers.

One of the reasons 5e has done so well with bringing new people to the game , I think, is that the designers reduced many of those barriers. It's much more of a "what you see is what you get" edition focused on story first. But there are holdouts of the 3e/4e mechanistic way of thinking, and Sorcerer/Wizard & Champion/Battle Master are prime examples.

I also think that you need to actually look and think about what the numbers of Wizard and Cleric subclasses that you are fixated on represent.
The wizard subclasses are simply the school of spells that the wizard emphasises. The Cleric's are just the aspect of their deity that they emphasise.
To my mind, that is equivalent to the Fighter's decision on the type of weapon or fighting style that they emphasise: they aren't concepts like the Rogue's archetypes, they are just expressions of specialisation like a Fighter picking Duelling style or the GWM feat for their Fighter bonus class feat.

I hope my example of the Diviner and Evoker above illustrated how, yes, the spell school specializations are about technique, but ALSO there is implied narrative identity attached to both the flavor text and how the subclass features express in actual play. That was a design choice they made.

They could do the same for the fighter's fighting styles, for example, turning "Great Weapon Fighter" into a subclass and attaching additional flavor to it, making them sound like Gregor Clegane or The Hound from GoT. Why I think they didn't do that, as opposed to the spell schools where they did do that, is because you can more easily think of Great Weapon Fighters who don't fit the mold of The Hound...because the fighter is based in reality more, or at least something we can relate to more. That's why fighting styles don't make good sub-classes – because they are just expressions of a specialization/technique, rather than an expression of a character.

Personally I like the way that the PHB Fighter subclasses aren't limited in scope to specific concepts. If I want to play a Samurai, I'm not pushed towards the Samurai Fighter Subclass: I can just play a Champion and use the decision points already in the class to bring out the concept. I agree with Mearls that the Champion subclass doesn't carry specific baggage with it, but disagree with him if he is stating that that is a bad thing.

You like how the PHB Fighter subclasses aren't limited in scope to specific concepts.

What about other classes in the PHB? Do you like how the Rogue subclasses are more limited in scope? Do you feel there's a design mandate for some classes to have subclasses based upon specialization/technique whereas others are based on a more focused narrative concept? If so, which classes fit on which side of the equation and why?

 

[Zardnaar]

It was specific to Zard. If you're saying Zard thinks like a 3e/PF player, I am not disagreeing. But if you're saying my reply was a generalization as opposed to a critique of Zards comment about his setting, you're misreading it.



It's intentionally not in published material because it's specifically an optional rule they don't support by default, so of course it's not in published material. But as for campaigns you've seen, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a world-building perspective. If your setting has feats for PCs, why wouldn't it have them for NPCs? What is it about PCs that let's them do more damage with a longbow or greatsword or glaive, than an NPC with the same strength/dex and class and weapon? Feats are not for the most part magical (or at least not the ones we're talking about) so what would be the in-world explanation for the identical bow wielded by the identical class and levels and ability scores doing 10 less damage with every hit?

Mostly theory crafting actually, I rarely get to play and when I do I usually do not use powerful builds or online character guides. I see what my players get up to though. I have played 3 PCs in 5E, a way of the fist monk, valor bard and a light cleric and only the light cleric would I regard as a "power build" and I played that PC in 2014 so it was an accident in terms of how good it was.

Oh I briefly played a Paladin as well but only to level 4.