D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Crimson Longinus]

Really we only need 2-3 more.

And once you get those, another couple. "The knight class is too restrictive, we need separate banneret, samurai and cavalier classes!"

The resistance to splitting the fighter into 2 is seriously holding the class and all of D&D back.

Fighter has already been spilt three times. Barbarian, ranger and paladin are now separate classes. Enough, there's soon nothing left.

 

[Maxperson]

If you feel that way probably just easier to play a non-class based system.

No. Not at all. I like the 3e format for it better.

 

[Minigiant]

And once you get those, another couple. "The knight class is too restrictive, we need separate banneret, samurai and chevalier classes!"

They'll have to argue that point if that time comes.

Fighter has already been spilt three times. Barbarian, ranger and paladin are now separate classes. Enough, there's soon nothing left.

No they weren't.

The barbarian, ranger, and paladin were never part of the fighter. They just used the fighters mechanics.

And it didn't work so they got their own mechanics.

That the point. Some D&D character concepts cannot be mechanically created well if they are forced to share mechanics with other concepts with totally different narrative spaces.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They'll have to argue that point if that time comes.

Right. And people will argue against it then, like I'm arguing against you now.

No they weren't.

The barbarian, ranger, and paladin were never part of the fighter. They just used the fighters mechanics.

And it didn't work so they got their own mechanics.

There was a time when they were not separate classes. Then fighter would be used to represent them. Now it really cannot any more. Every time you add a new class, you narrow the conceptual space of the existing classes. By making a separate warlord class, you're saying that conceptually fighter cannot be that any more. I don't want that. I actually like fighters, and I don't want them to carved into separate classes until there's nothing left.

That the point. Some D&D character concepts cannot be mechanically created well if they are forced to share mechanics with other concepts with totally different narrative spaces.

But it's not different narrative space. Narratively warlord is a fighter who rises to be a leader and focuses on that. And this supposed 'complex fighter' is even less a separate concept than that. It is simply people being dissatisfied with the rules wanting a new set of rules for a thing that already has rules.

 

[Undrave]

By making a separate warlord class, you're saying that conceptually fighter cannot be that any more. I don't want that.

And I'd argue that they already cannot be that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I'd argue that they already cannot be that.

But they can. They can't be the exact 4e version, but they can do the concept. You just don't like the rules. Since the first edition fighter was the class could become a lord or some such and command troops. Being 'warlord' was a part of their concept from the get go.

 

[Minigiant]

Right. And people will argue against it then, like I'm arguing against you now.

Of course. But they will have to agree against WOTCs design choices at that point.

There was a time when they were not separate classes. Then fighter would be used to represent them. Now it really cannot any more. Every time you add a new class, you narrow the conceptual space of the existing classes. By making a separate warlord class, you're saying that conceptually fighter cannot be that any more. I don't want that. I actually like fighters, and I don't want them to carved into separate classes until there's nothing left.

Not really.

You couldn't play a ranger as it is in 5e in the 0e fighter.

You could say it represented them but not well. And that's the point.

On many representations of fantasy warriors, the fighter as published does a below average job. The question is if it is low enough to the point to mark it as a strike against playing D&D 5e.

The biggest benefit 5e has is that no giant corporation has entered the TTRPG market. So 5e has many strikes it can survive.

But it's not different narrative space. Narratively warlord is a fighter who rises to be a leader and focuses on that. And this supposed 'complex fighter' is even less a separate concept than that. It is simply people being dissatisfied with the rules wanting a new set of rules for a thing that already has rules.

No. A warlord is a warrior that uses their mental ability scores to for combat inspiration, tictics, and insight.

The fighter as built in 5e is too focused on its physical ability scores to advance in combat prowess that it can barely influence combat with his mind.

As for the complex fighter, imma say something controversial.

The "Simple Fighter" should been the Barbarian. The Champion shoulda been a Barbarian subclass. Basic physical brutes should be Martial Barbarians. Barbarians should've been chooses between Rage or Power Strike (I Attack HARDER!!)

The Fighter would be complex by default to represent the Elite Training fighters do.

D&D and D&D is one of the few games that still attempts to combine specially trained warrior and commonly trained ones that happened to be born strong.

 

[Maxperson]

But they can. They can't be the exact 4e version, but they can do the concept. You just don't like the rules. Since the first edition fighter was the class could become a lord or some such and command troops. Being 'warlord' was a part of their concept from the get go.

A Warlord cobbled onto the Fighter chassis would be just that, cobbled. There isn't room enough in the subclass ability section to make anything other than a mediocre at best Warlord, and I say that as someone who dislikes that class. The Warlord really needs to be its own class with subclasses specializing in the different kinds of Warlords, such as the Lazylord.

 

[ECMO3]

The barbarian, ranger, and paladin were never part of the fighter. They just used the fighters mechanics.

As a point of fact in 1E Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian were all initially fighter subclasses. Late in 1E after Unearthed Arcana was published Paladin became a Cavalier subclass. Barbarian and Ranger were still fighter subclasses through the end of 1E.

In 2E Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin were all warrior subclasses.

It was not until 3E that Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian became separate classes.

 

[ECMO3]

A Warlord cobbled onto the Fighter chassis would be just that, cobbled. There isn't room enough in the subclass ability section to make anything other than a mediocre at best Warlord, and I say that as someone who dislikes that class. The Warlord really needs to be its own class with subclasses specializing in the different kinds of Warlords, such as the Lazylord.

I would disagree with that. I think you could do it pretty easy with homebrew subclass and homebrew feats.