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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

I guess I am more wondering if all the styles were available, would fighters take advantage of it? Going up against a low AC opponent? Drop the shield and grab a second weapon or two-handed one. Being attacked by a flying foe? Switch to your bow! These are basically things I already see often enough, but it would be nice if Fighters could benefit from them more when they switch. Feats could be taken to even improve an extra one or maybe two.

I do think we need more fighting styles and maybe 10 would be a sweet spot, especially if you could effectively benefit from 3 or so at once.

And yes, this was not my solution to making a high level fighter what they should be, more of a "something they should have already had" thought.

 

[CleverNickName]

It would be interesting if the Fighter class had a set of martial abilities that it could "prepare" each day, sort of the way that the cleric and wizard prepare their spells for the day. If you knew that you were going to be crawling through a dungeon, you would load up on melee combat tricks and tactics....if you knew that you would be hunting beasts in the jungle, you would prepare your tracking and ranged abilities. Etc.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

because the discussion is not leading to any improvement of the game. If you want everybody to be a king at a certain charlevel then play birthright, it supports that playstyle.

But that your opinion, right? All we are doing here is arguing our opinion on what this new system will include or not. If you dont think having stronghold or retainers bonus in the base fighter class is a fun addition, more power to you, but not everybody agrees. And no one is arguing that everybody as to be king at 20 lvl, but maybe the fighter can a legendary leader at 20th, there's a difference.

Telling to people ''go play another game'' because the system does no support what we want is not constructive when we are currently building the system: no one knows what it will support!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like your honest judgement, but again, if someone wants to run around with 7 weapons he has to aquire a carriot and a mule in my games, I do not use encumbrance rules, but it is either a two handed weapon or a shield. A ranged weapon a sidearm and 1-3 daggers, and that is it. And with 5e as you pointed out that is more thna enough.

Yes, but I don't really want it to be enough. I want different types of weapon damage to matter, and they demonstrably don't.

 

[Coroc]

The level 20 mage has 9 levels of spells that can transport the party across planes of the world, create almost any object, read minds, and transform pretty much anything into anything else. They get to make interesting decisions in what they have available, and are of great use to the party due to their capabilities in the social and exploration pillar, while still matching the fighter in the combat pillar.

Frankly I have very little interest in giving extra fighting styles etc to the fighter, because I find combat buffs that just give bigger numbers are a) Boring, and b) unnecessary. As you say, fighters do OK when throwing numbers at the enemy: I'd rather see more interesting tactical options, which I believe that Level Up will be instituting.

Where I find the issue with Fighters lies is outside of combat. In the adventuring day that is usually seen in a lot of games, the wizard and other casters simply dominate the exploration side of the game, and also do better at the social. It is this inequality that I find to be the biggest and hardest question posed by the thread.

Talking about imbalances of previous editions is irrelevant. We're here to address the imbalances of this one.

Well that depends totally on how your campaigns are made. Of course a wizard can shift everybody to another plane, but if the fighter does not protect him there he will die. A god or other epic being will crush either wizard or fighter alone, but as a cooperating full group they maybe find a cunning way to deal with it.

 

[FrogReaver]

So maybe it helps to step back a moment and ask “what is a class”?

a class is a form of narrative authority given to the player whereby he is assured a certain bear minimum of fiction is true about his character in the game world.

In 5e any character can serve the gods. You pick a cleric when you want to be assured that divine power comes with that fiction.

any character in 5e can study the arcane and spells. You pick a wizard when you want to be assured that you’ll be able to learn to cast spells. But any character given time and inclination could potentially learn to cast a spell without becoming a wizard, right?

In short, the whole point of classes is to give players a guaranteed path to a particular kind of character so he doesn’t have to rely on dm graciousness. I think we’ve had classes so long and gotten used to them that their original purpose has been forgotten.

 

[Coroc]

Yes, but I don't really want it to be enough. I want different types of weapon damage to matter, and they demonstrably don't.

Just houserule it to your liking, it is in the books. Do not like something, change it. Apologies if you are mainly running AL because then you got to live with the compromise.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, but I don't really want it to be enough. I want different types of weapon damage to matter, and they demonstrably don't.

I don’t want that at all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We're here to address the imbalances of this one.

Hey, Cap'n, I see you gave my post a like (which I appreciate!) but never commented on the ideas:

That's all I got for now? Thoughts?

Did you have any thoughts on them? Are they at least the direction you are looking for?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just houserule it to your liking, it is in the books. Do not like something, change it. Apologies if you are mainly running AL because then you got to live with the compromise.

We are talking about making a new game here. I don't think "house rule stuff you don't like" is helpful.