D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Tony Vargas]

Which, to me at least, is a feature not a bug.

Feature or bug, it carries a small price in lack of consistency, and offers another small degree of freedom from design discipline. As a DM who might mod or create sub-classes or even a class (probably not, but I suppose it could happen), I can see the 'feature' aspect. As a player, the bug aspect bites a little, but 'as a player' has been, like, 3 times in 3 years, so...
::shrug::

"Agnostically informative"?

"insoluble fiber?" "probiotic?"

 

[Sacrosanct]

Which, to me at least, is a feature not a bug.

You're absolutely right, it is! (look at how it displays to me)

 

[Quickleaf]

"Agnostically informative"?

Hah, I like it! Change has been made from "empty calories" to "agnostically informative"!

Which, to me at least, is a feature not a bug.

How do you see it as a feature?

What's your perspective on how that determination is made? How do you decide which class gets a subclass that's framed as a technique (e.g. Battle Master) vs. an organization (e.g. new Ranger conclaves) vs. a more narrative identity (e.g. Thief)? Is it just whatever the designer decides is best from an artistic standpoint without any underlying reasoning?

The subtext of my question is: Why should the Fighter subclasses be about technique whereas, for example, the Rogue subclasses are more about holistic character identity? Is there some implicit assumption about players who play Fighters vs. players who play Rogues (or Wizards or Clerics)? Do you believe Fighter players want less story in their subclass selection than players of other classes?

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah but you DM games like a madman! You probably have clocked more hours of DMing that any 5 players posting in this thread

Slowed down recently due to RL things. Recruited a new player or 2 probably gonna run Princes of the Apocalypse.

Then hopefully back to weekly 5 hour sessions. The 8 hour sessions are a thing of the past.

Probably never beat our 1998 28 hour session which had a 2 hour slugfest in it.

 

[S'mon]

Then hopefully back to weekly 5 hour sessions. The 8 hour sessions are a thing of the past.

I've actually been doing 16 hours/week of 5e recently (plus some 4e & Classic) - 1 4 hour tabletop session and up to 12 hours or so of online GMing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How do you see it as a feature?

Leaves design space open. Even though the Champion & BM are 'technique sub-classes,' the PDK can be a 'membership sub-class.'

 

[Quickleaf]

The perplexing thing is, D&D does have significant reason to use either (or even both, in a sense).

It makes sense to design a class based on a recognizable archetype(s) from genre, it's a starting point that informs and inspires the design process, and it helps the game to model, or at least evoke the feel of, the genre, as well.

It also makes sense to use a class in a build (especially an MC build), based on what it does, rather than the initial inspiration, if you have a different concept than the genre archetype in question in mind, that happens to share many of the same abilities.

Hmm... I guess that designer perspective vs player perspective.

Absolutely! That inherent conflict between needs of a beginner player (or a "Story First" player) and needs of a veteran player (or a "Mechanics First") player is something that – from reading in between the lines of the designer interviews – they want to build up to. Their first priority was – for the most part, Fighter being the big exception – creating archetypes recognizable to players both new and lapsed. From all the anecdotes I'm hearing, sounds like they've accomplished that. With that baseline of success, now it's possible for them to explore some other mechanical options that appeal to veteran players. Same reason they started with more pre-packaged adventure paths in the Forgotten Realms to establish a baseline, and are slowly expanding from there. Very sensible strategy.

Nod. Not traditional, so a non-starter in the context of 5e, but logical.

Well, I'd take the "traditional stuff is only included in 5e" thinking with a grain of salt. Yes, it's mostly based on tradition, but there are notable exceptions...

Look at the Concentration mechanics. Look at the Oath of Ancients paladin. Look at the inclusion of spending hit dice to heal during a short rest. Look at the Warlock as originating in the 3e era. Look at the Monk sub-classes (probably originated in 3e also). Look at the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn. Look at the indie-style roleplaying mechanics and Inspiration.

Difference Between the Sorcerer & Wizard. It's not that mechanistic in degree, either. At least in 3.x it was a significant mechanical difference, even if they were using the same spells. At least in 4e, they were using completely different spell lists & were of different roles (the Blaster and Controller you posited, above, approximately). In 5e, the Sorcerer gets no unique spells and everyone casts spontaneously, it's tough hanging the whole magic-in-the-blood concept on metamagic.

Yeah, I think that's a good example of a disconnect between narrative and mechanics. For example, the Thief's Second Story Work feature is a mechanic reinforcing the narrative of "The Thief is the guy who breaks in and steals stuff." But the 5e Sorcerer mechanics neither go the distance to meaningfully differentiate it from the Wizard nor support its own narrative of "The Sorcerer is born of magic, with magic in his or her veins."

Sidenote: In one of my games inspired by The Witcher, I've rewritten the Sorcerer to better reflect that game's mythos, but also in the process more substantially differentiate the class from the Wizard.

To return to the Fighter – The Fighter core class is only lightly differentiated from other warrior-type classes; Action Surge could be seen as fulfilling a similar differentiating role as the Sorcerer's Metamagic (the main thing that distinguishes Sorcerer from Wizard). However, the Fighter's subclasses *do* differentiate it mechanically. So in that respect, the design of the Fighter succeeds. But it comes at the cost of identity.

It seems to be different for each class.

Yeah, that's my observation as well. It's something I'm curious about. Are these conscious design choices being made? For example: Why do we (putting ourselves in the designers' shoes) want to differentiate Fighter subclasses primarily by fighting technique without attached narrative? Do we have play data or assumptions we've made about the sorts of players who play Fighters that makes breaking down subclass by technique appropriate for the Fighter, but not, say, for the Rogue or Paladin?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's actually one thing the PHB is silent on, but was actively discussed during he D&DNext Playtest – what is a subclass supposed to represent? It is a technique? Is it a secret society? Is it a cultural identity?

I've always felt that the Paladin and the Barbarian would make good subclasses for the Fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Their first priority was – for the most part, Fighter being the big exception – creating archetypes recognizable to players both new and lapsed.

D&D-style Clerics and wizards, and the distinction between D&D Sorcerers and D&D Wizards, and D&D Paladins & Rangers, for that matter, are not recognizable without some prior exposure to D&D - Bards and, especially, Druids are pushing it without some prior exposure to Celtic mythology. (Ironically, while the 5e Ranger apparently flails for any sort of coherent identity, 'ranger' does conjure up things to the non-D&Der not entirely inconsistent with it - guiding people through the wilderness, commando actions, pursuing a quary, etc - even if it's via Rangers of the 'Army,' 'Park' and 'Lone' variety as much or more than the Strider archetype).

So, no, the first priority was evoking the classic game, and classes did that. Two classes went ahead and evoked the less-classic 3.5, but one of them didn't go all that well. :shrug:

With that baseline of success, now it's possible for them to explore some other mechanical options that appeal to veteran players.

What's not to appeal to veteran and returning players in the PH? The classes are mostly familiar from the TSR era, but for two variant Mages from the d20 SRD era. 'Veteran' in the sense of system masters? Turn on feats & MCing.

Well, I'd take the "traditional stuff is only included in 5e" thinking with a grain of salt. Yes, it's mostly based on tradition, but there are notable exceptions...

A very small grain.

Look at the Concentration mechanics. Look at the inclusion of spending hit dice to heal during a short rest. Look at the Monk sub-classes (probably originated in 3e also). Look at the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

The Monk was in 1e, as were Assassins, 1e OA had ninjas and Ki and whatnot. Dragonborn evoke the Draconians of 2e. Concentration and HD are very traditional labels, even if there's some less-traditional nuance or functionality to them in 5e.

Look at the Oath of Ancients paladin. Look at the Warlock as originating in the 3e era. Look at the indie-style roleplaying mechanics and Inspiration.

I vaguely remember talk of 'what if there were a 'Druidic Paladin' or 'Nature Paladin' back in the day. And the Sorcerer (and Warlock) in 3.x was a direct outgrowth of dissatisfaction with Vancian that - albeit mostly in the form of 'mana'/spell-point variants - went all the way back, too.

But, yes, Inspiration sticks out like sore thumb, just kinda tacked on. (ouch, painful mixed metaphor, that)

There a very few new-ish things in 5e, but overwhelmingly & intentionally, it evokes the classic game. If it didn't evoke it thoroughly enough, they'd be burning PHs on YouTube.

 

[dco]

Like what, specifically? Are you saying you build your monsters in 3e with non-combat values? Do you have examples, and then can you answer why? I'm assuming most monsters won't be encountered out of combat, so that seems a wasted effort to me.

I'll give you this though. You must be way more skilled than I am. I can't create a 3e monster as fast as I can create a 5e one. Not even close, if I'm designing that 3e monster with classes and levels. 5e gives me one generic chart to look at and that's it. Then some minor modifications here and there to fit what I want. Takes me way longer in 3e to create monsters. Just the varying levels of attack bonuses, varying AC values, and varying damages took way longer.

Name, HP, AC, attacks, damage, saving throws, special abilities if any and skills that could be used.
The 3e monsters had more things than the ones published in this edition, and they had a framework, base attack went up with hitdice, you had always saves that went up with their level, skills, feats, etc. Here I find monsters or NPCs with lots of HPs and +1 or +2 proficiency, arbitrary proficiencies on saving throws if the have, sometimes they have skills and other times not, saves with arbitrary values for their special abilities, etc. Add the problem of feats, don't know if they are balanced against them or not. At the end a lot of nitpicks that make me value the old monster manuals above the current one. What I like is the current pictures.

Hah, I like it! Change has been made from "empty calories" to "agnostically informative"!

How do you see it as a feature?

What's your perspective on how that determination is made? How do you decide which class gets a subclass that's framed as a technique (e.g. Battle Master) vs. an organization (e.g. new Ranger conclaves) vs. a more narrative identity (e.g. Thief)? Is it just whatever the designer decides is best from an artistic standpoint without any underlying reasoning?

The subtext of my question is: Why should the Fighter subclasses be about technique whereas, for example, the Rogue subclasses are more about holistic character identity? Is there some implicit assumption about players who play Fighters vs. players who play Rogues (or Wizards or Clerics)? Do you believe Fighter players want less story in their subclass selection than players of other classes?

That's were I don't understand you. What is the holistic identity? Where is the story of the thief an assassin?
If I open the book I read:
Thief : " You hone your skills in the larcenous arts...."
Champion: "The archetypal champion hones his ability..."
Then some powers, not sure where is the holistic identity of second story work, supreme sneak, use magic device and thief's reflexes, they could be perfecly used with an assassin, they look more like arbitrary rules to design different subclasses with different powers.