D&D 5E How to "fix" (or at least help) the fighter/wizard dynamic. (+)

[Jer]

One of the biggest regrets I think I have from the next playtest was moving superiority dice to a single subclass. I get they wanted the "roll to hit" champion fighter to be the training wheels class, but I think modern audiences can handle a fighter that got dice and maneuvers as core.

My irritation with the Champion as built in the PHB is that there's no equivalent class for spellcasters. If you're going to provide a simplest possible fighter subclass, where's the simplest possible wizard class? Or if we want to make the wizard superspecial and not provide an entry level subclass for it, even Sorcerer and Warlock have their own complexities in 5e and don't have a subclass equivalent to the Champion.

(And with the addition of sidekick classes I think they addressed that objection nicely and and also made the rationale for the Champion almost disappear. Someone who wants that 'roll to hit' fighter can play a Warrior, and someone who wants a simple caster can play a Spellcaster. )

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also: tiers of play already exists in 5e: 1-4 "mundane" (you're not more powerful than town guards), 5-10 heroic, 11-16 paragon, 17-20 epic.

Yep. Just emphasise it more and actually give paragon and epic tier martials more impactful abilities. And also review the spells, and see if they're actually suitable for the tiers in which they are currently gained. I feel bumping the level of some spells might be in order.

 

[Cadence]

Also: tiers of play already exists in 5e: 1-4 "mundane" (you're not more powerful than town guards), 5-10 heroic, 11-16 paragon, 17-20 epic.

Symmetry and round number seems to be a thing people like (3 physical/3 mental; 9-levels of spells all around; equal XP to advance) - I'd never paid attention much to tiers before, but is it odd that the level stacking goes 4 for mundane, 6 for heroric, 6 for paragon, 4 for epic? Or is it just a different kind of symmetry around 10.5?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yep. Just emphasise it more and actually give paragon and epic tier martials more impactful abilities. And also review the spells, and see if they're actually suitable for the tiers they currently are gained. I feel bumping the level of some spells might be in order.

One idea I really liked form PF2 was that as you hit higher tiers of skill mastery, you could do more and cooler things with them.

An epic-tier athletics check to bring down a temple should absolutely be possible.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Symmetry and round number seems to be a thing people like (3 physical/3 mental; 9-levels of spells all around; equal XP to advance) - I'd never paid attention much to tiers before, but is it odd that the level stacking goes 4 for mundane, 6 for heroric, 6 for paragon, 4 for epic? Or is it just a different kind of symmetry around 10.5?

It's 3rd, 6th, and 9th level spells that set the new tiers. Other abilities were adjusted to match (ie Extra Attack)

As noted elsewhere, we can debate whether every spell is the right level, but I don't think there's any fundamental problem with 5e to be solved. Just some edge cases and weird hypotheticals that look bad.

I will admit that if you actually played an epic-tier game without any magic items, it would probably be bad. But I also don't think that actually happens.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One idea I really liked form PF2 was that as you hit higher tiers of skill mastery, you could do more and cooler things with them.

An epic-tier athletics check to bring down a temple should absolutely be possible.

Yep. absolutely! I was just thinking this earlier, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to mechanically handle it. How it is done in PF2?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yep. absolutely! I was just thinking this earlier, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to mechanically handle it. How it is done in PF2?

So in PF2 you have four tiers of training for each skill: trained, expert, master, legendary. Aside from skill feats, there are certain checks that either can't be done without the right level of training or have differing results based on training. Here's the SRD page for athletics (which is basically the same as 5e Athletics): https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=3

I wouldn't want to bring in the idea entirely - just picking a skill once seems fine to me, but I do like the idea of tiers affecting what you can do with skill checks.

 

[Quickleaf]

I applaud anyone stepping into the ring, so to speak, of fighter re-design in public forums because it's a very contentious topic.

My experience with "design by committee" in regards to this specific aspect of the game is that if there isn't strong design direction – if you don't clearly articulate what issues you want to address / changes you want to make – then you end up with a big mess.

To state it another way: Know which minority of players you're redesigning this for.

My thoughts can be summarized thus:

• Designing for the Minority... Any redesign efforts are not for "many" players – D&D Beyond data & the limited survey data we have from WotC suggest that ~75% of players are happy with the 5e Fighter. So any redesign is for a minority. Embracing that helps you get specific about what you want.
• ...But Which Minority? In my experience, that minority is not at all in agreement about what they want a resdesigned Fighter (or Wizard, or magic system, etc) to look like. For instance, I've played with some gamers who embrace PCs lacking in combat ability, but I know they only represent a small minority, and that most D&D players enjoy contributing in combat.
• Specific Fighter Class Issues: The Fighter class specifically has the following issues: (1) levels with fewer features compared to others, (2) mechanically-defined subclasses lacking narrative & Champion subclass being sub-par, (3) Indomitable is weak compared to monk, and (4) capstone breaks from "start of tier" Extra Attack and feels lackluster.
• Void of Identity: These issues stem – at least in part – from a void in the Fighter's identity left by (a) removing the "feudal lord" component from BD&D and AD&D without replacing it with anything, and (b) slowly giving away special fighter features to other classes with modern editions of D&D. In my opinion, this left a void in identity. Whether that void is problematic varies by taste. For example, Mike Mearls finds it problematic, I find it problematic (as I see more multiclassed "dips" into fighter than other classes), but ~75% of D&D players do not.
• Compare Like to Like: We should not overly rely on comparing apples-to-oranges (i.e. Fighters to Wizards), but rather we should focus our comparison on Fighters to their "next of kin" like Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues. For example, at 2nd level Fighter just gets Action Surge – is that balanced compared to Paladin getting Fighting Style, Spellcasting, and Divine Smite or Ranger getting Fighting Style and Spellcasting? That's a worthwhile inquiry.
• Beware Features/Choices Bloat: This one is especially subjective, but it's very easy when redesigning the Fighter to present an excess of choice to players under the assumption that the minority want the Fighter experience to be like the spellcaster experience of choosing spells (options) from an extensive list. That's been done in 4e and for 5e in LevelUp. The gains in complex choice come at the loss of elegant simplicity - so it's designing for a specific minority of players. Which is fine. Just be aware of who you're designing for.
• D&D is High Magic: When you start getting into combing spell lists to nerf spells that, for instance, make an exploration style of game harder to run in the way a DM wants, then you're also needing to evaluate not just spells but entire subsystems of the game. Oh wait, you mean the Genie Warlock can inhabit an extradimensional space at Xth level while they're carried by an unseen servant or zombie? Uh... shoot! You can make D&D lower magic – plenty of hacks for it out there – but it's going to take a lot of work, and you're going to be moving further away from the "common language" of how 5e is typically played, and thus whittling down the size of the (already small) player pool you're designing for.
• Beware Thinking in Terms of Spells: While there are clearly spells that have been powered up in 5e compared to older editions (e.g. Leomund's Tiny Hut is a prime offender if you look back at its versions in 4e, 3e, and AD&D) & long-time spells that can make the logistics aspects of travel moot (e.g. goodberry, create food and water), it's very easy to fall into the trap of "well, fly kicks in at 5th level so if we're trying to give equal access to the exploration pillar then the Fighter needs some kind of flight option around that level." Not at all. What if instead the Fighter got a "grounding shot" option to knock a flying creature prone? Or what if the Fighter could use their reaction to "leap onto a flying creature"? Or what if the Fighter can take a "Hard Route" option allowing the player to declare the existence of a more challenging alternative route underground or over a foreboding bridge that the DM hadn't previously narrated? While understanding when which spells become available at which level is helpful, limiting ourselves to "spell-think" can really box in creativity.

 

[payn]

Is that, like, supposed to happen? After a couple years of working together as a team the fighter just one day decides to challenge the wizard to a duel?

I dont know, but if it does a lot of folks want the fight to be a coin flip.

 

[Oofta]

The 5e fighter was rendered untenable by the playtest. It will never be allowed to even approach the wizard. New classes are the best solution.

Edit: Sorry, thought this was the other thread. On the other hand, can we keep this a + thread that tries to solve the problem not "let's vent like I do on the other threads?"