Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[Asisreo]

Just a quick thought: would it be OP for high level fighters (say tier 4) to have all the fighting styles? So, if they pick up a single weapon and shield, they benefit from Dueling, if they grab a two-handed weapon, they get GWF, and if they pick up two weapons, benefit from TWF-style.

With armor on (most of the time), they get the +1 to AC. If they have a shield, they can use their reaction for protection. Finally, make Archery something more universal like "ranged/thrown", so whenever the fire a ranged weapon or throw a weapon, they can get a +2 to attack rolls.

Is all that too much? It gives Fighters enormous versatility IMO and I don't think it is too much off-hand. shrug

Nope, not that I can think of, adjusting everything accordingly.

Problem is, that still only makes them better at combat so it still doesn't address the fighter vs wizard thing. They'd also probably not switch to different fighting styles anyways unless they had good matching feats to match.

 

[Minigiant]

Just a quick thought: would it be OP for high level fighters (say tier 4) to have all the fighting styles? So, if they pick up a single weapon and shield, they benefit from Dueling, if they grab a two-handed weapon, they get GWF, and if they pick up two weapons, benefit from TWF-style.

With armor on (most of the time), they get the +1 to AC. If they have a shield, they can use their reaction for protection. Finally, make Archery something more universal like "ranged/thrown", so whenever the fire a ranged weapon or throw a weapon, they can get a +2 to attack rolls.

Is all that too much? It gives Fighters enormous versatility IMO and I don't think it is too much off-hand. shrug

It's that just a slightly upgraded version of a UA feat?

If so, it really isn't that high level in scope. Fighting styles are just worth half a feat by themselves already and you get them at level 1 as a fighter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

it still doesn't address the fighter vs wizard thing

Sure, it wasn't meant to address that. Of course, I don't have much of an issue with fighter vs. wizards...

They'd also probably not switch to different fighting styles anyways unless they had good matching feats to match.

True, but if this was an option, would people build to take the feat to utilize it? I don't know... maybe? maybe not?

It's that just a slightly upgraded version of a UA feat?

I don't know. I general don't follow UA feats...

Fighting styles are just worth half a feat by themselves already and you get them at level 1 as a fighter.

There are six fighting styles. You get one as a fighter (two if you go champion). That means the remaining 4-5 styles equals 2-2.5 feats? I'd consider that a nice buff to Fighters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just a quick thought: would it be OP for high level fighters (say tier 4) to have all the fighting styles? So, if they pick up a single weapon and shield, they benefit from Dueling, if they grab a two-handed weapon, they get GWF, and if they pick up two weapons, benefit from TWF-style.

With armor on (most of the time), they get the +1 to AC. If they have a shield, they can use their reaction for protection. Finally, make Archery something more universal like "ranged/thrown", so whenever the fire a ranged weapon or throw a weapon, they can get a +2 to attack rolls.

Is all that too much? It gives Fighters enormous versatility IMO and I don't think it is too much off-hand. shrug

In practice every character is going to have a favoured combat style, and the opportunity cost of actively using that versatility (other than the +1 AC) is not actually using your primary combat style. Even the versatility granted isn't incredible tbh.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'd love to see a level 10 fighter vs a level 17 fighter all stated out. I want to get an idea of how much more powerful they are.

Assuming identical ability scores. At level 17, the F17 would likely have weapons and armor +1 or +2 better than F10.

The differences would be:
F17 has 21 more HP than F10 (about a 35% increase or so assumign CON 16, which is +2 HP in AD&D).
F17 has +8 better attack rolls (not including the very likely +1 or 2 more from magic items of superior quality) than F10
F17 has maybe +1 to +3 better damage, but only if superior magical weapons.
F17 might have better weapon damage if using a weapon they are specialized in that F10 is not. shrug
F17 has an extra weapon attack every other round than F10.
F17 has +5 better saving throws than F10.

If we give them typical armor, shields, and longswords, you would likely have:
F17:
AC: -4 (plate +2, shield +3, dex -1 to AC)
HP: 91 (CON 16)
Attack: +8 (double-specialization +3, STR +1, longsword +4) with THAC0: 4.
DMG: 1d8 + 8

F10:
AC: -2 (plate +1, shield +2, dex -1 to AC)
HP: 67 (CON 16)
Attack: +6 (double-specialization +3, STR +1, longsword +2) with THAC0: 12.
DMG: 1d8 + 6

So, the F17 would need a 6 (THAC0 4 - -2 AC), but gets a +8, so can't miss since the minimum modified roll would be 9. IIRC, a nat 1 automatically missing was not a rule in AD&D, but I could be wrong since everyone played it like that anyway...

With average damage of 12.5 (4.5 + 8), the F17 would kill the F10 in about 3 rounds or 6 attacks.

F10 needs a 16 (THAC0 12 - -4 AC), with a +6 means a 10 or higher on the d20. So, roughly 50%. With average damage of 10.5, F10 would do about 21-31 points of damage before being killed. That is less than 1/3 of F17's HP.

Obviously the biggest difference is the +8 more to attack F17 has over F10, and the +5 more to all saves would help as well (though not likely in a direct battle between the two...).

Damage isn't too much different, and the one extra attack every two rounds is nice but not huge. Take away the superior magic armor and weapons, and F10 fairs slightly better, but it really is no contest.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know. I general don't follow UA feats...

There is a new feat in the July UA, Fighting Initiate. It gives a fighting style and lets you switch that style when you level. Your idea more or less makes the switch instantly.

There are six fighting styles. You get one as a fighter (two if you go champion). That means the remaining 4-5 styles equals 2-2.5 feats? I'd consider that a nice buff to Fighters.

Oh it's a buff. The issue is it's not that much of a buff. Most of the benefits of Fighting Styles don't stack. Therefore getting all 6 fighting styles is more like having 3 fighting styles. Then once you get to the fact that high level characters tend to be more optimized do to the sheer power of their challenges. So the benefits of getting FSs you aren't optimized for so late would be minimal.

Now if more Fighting Styles were made official,it gets better as the versatility of multiple styles would evenly be enough to stack to the power that it would seem epic in play.

But as is, it's only a solid t3 class feature for a level 10-13 fighter. It invoked what a high level fighter could do but it's less a defining feature. With a high level fighter, it's more that his or her prowess, accuracy, and skill empowers all their attacks and defenses. More like the fighter's expanded crit range.

 

[TwoSix]

Just a quick thought: would it be OP for high level fighters (say tier 4) to have all the fighting styles? So, if they pick up a single weapon and shield, they benefit from Dueling, if they grab a two-handed weapon, they get GWF, and if they pick up two weapons, benefit from TWF-style.

With armor on (most of the time), they get the +1 to AC. If they have a shield, they can use their reaction for protection. Finally, make Archery something more universal like "ranged/thrown", so whenever the fire a ranged weapon or throw a weapon, they can get a +2 to attack rolls.

Is all that too much? It gives Fighters enormous versatility IMO and I don't think it is too much off-hand. shrug

I've house-ruled that to work for all martial characters upon gaining Fighting Styles, with the caveat that Defense only applies to heavy armor or a character with a shield. No problems, and it encourages more weapon flexibility.

 

[Coroc]

One of the core problems of post-TSR non-4e D&D is that there's no real vision of what a high level fighter should be. Fundamentally a first level fighter moves at a human's pace and swings a sharpened piece of metal hard and fast at enemies in arms' length to kill them. A 20th level fighter ... moves at a human's pace and swings a sharpened piece of metal at enemies in arms' length to kill them. Meanwhile the wizard has graduated from burning hands a couple of times a day to permanently shapeshifting into a dragon, creating demiplanes, and casting Wish.

This wasn't the case in TSR era D&D for multiple reasons:

• The game was effectively soft-capped at level 9 or 10 due to the XP charts
• The fighter as a class feature got a small army as well as lands, and the small army gave them their ability to do weird things
• The wizard had far fewer spells known, and especially a much weaker choice of them
• Levels didn't claim to be equal; there were different XP tracks for different classes.

It also wasn't true in 4e with its reigned in magic and fighters who could do some pretty impressive things at epic level. But it's been true in 3.0, 3.5, and 5e. And is something that could and should be fixed.

So what does it mean for the fighter to level up in Level Up? Is the fighter an inherently low level archetype?

• The Mythic Fighter - Beowulf, CuChulain, Hercules, Roland, Outlaws of the Water Margin. The high level fighter is the demigod of mythology, able to perform ridiculous feats of strength and physical ability, leaving reality far behind.
• The Deadly Fighter - John Wick, et al. The deadly fighter putting a sword through someone kills them dead - and none of this "hit points" nonsense that makes a high level fighter feel like they are wielding boffer swords. Instead what they hit they normally kill (literal gods may be merely discorporated) irrespective of defences, and the trick is delivering the fighter to the target. And they can also do the old AD&D trick of one attack per class level per round against weak foes to thresh their way through minions.
• The Noble - the AD&D fighter writ large, with more troops and more elite troops as they level up. The fighter themselves is deadly - but so are their minions. Even this breaks down after about level 14 or so.
• The Level Cap - fighters are inherently mundane and simply do not have the potential to hang with the big boys. Cap them at level 10.

This, of course, is a perfect case for Prestige Classes - at level 10 the fighter picks one of the above options as well as or instead of continuing to level up as a fighter. Possibly as a second subclass.

The rogue of course has a similar problem and needs its own discussion.

5e magic is much weaker compared to other editions. Only 1 spell to concentrate on, only 1 slot of level 6-9, the only thing that makes up for it is the weak saves. Damaging spells are much weaker especially. Where in other editions a fireball could wipe out a group of enemies, no matter if they save or not, this is not the case anymore.

A wish can go southwards. A level 20 fighter if he wins initiative and goes all out has soem chance to obliterate a CR20 dragon if he got some magic stuff on him..

I do not see your problems at all. If you want to have a fighter aquire nobility, lead armies, then go for it. You do not need rules for that, do you?
If your 20 rogue leads a guild, yea then he just does it, and got some purpose and hooks besides the normal adventuring stuff.

So what do you think makes the level 20 mage so much more interesting? He maybe got a tower and a hunchbacked assistant by then, how impressive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because the monsters, in that game (the one described by Derren), monsters have specific vulnerabilties and resistances, not blanket ''you resist all that unless its magic''.

• Undead are resistant to slashing, immune to piercing and vulnerable to radiant and blunt!
• Oozes can split when hit by a slashing weapon, better change it for a spear or whatever!
• Iron golem need an adamantium blade to be damaged!
• Rust monster eats all metal that touches them, better switch to a hide armor and a club!
• Dragons will only be straffing over you with their breath, until you destroy their wings, witch are only non-resistant to slashing. Once on the ground, better break their scale with a blunt weapon before you try to use piercing or slashing weapon on them!

Differentiating weapons more, especially by having monsters be more or less vulnerable to different kinds of weapon damage, would change so much about combat for the better! It would give a reason for characters to be proficient in more than one, and therefore make it matter that fighters have so many. It would force more tactical play, and it would give a reason to keep a magic weapon that wasn't your favorite.

 

[TwoSix]

I do not see your problems at all. If you want to have a fighter aquire nobility, lead armies, then go for it. You do not need rules for that, do you?
If your 20 rogue leads a guild, yea then he just does it, and got some purpose and hooks besides the normal adventuring stuff.

I think what you're missing is there's a fairly large camp of players that DO want rules for it, specifically player-facing rules that are not strictly dependent on DM fiat to work.

You're welcome to explain to them that they shouldn't want what they want, of course.